9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng their Service Tax liability, after availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on various input services. 2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the Cenvat credit of around Rs. 20.22 Crores availed by the appellant during the period 2011-2014, which stands raised against them by way show cause notice dated 05.10.2016, by invoking the longer period of limitation. The notice proposed denial of credit is on three different grounds. First that the invoices of the service provider are in the name of call centre, whereas the same should have been in the name of their head office located at Sector 16A, Noida. Further a part of the credit is sought to be denied on the ground that the invoices are not in the appellant's n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all eligible documents in the eyes of law. He submits that there is no requirement under the Cenvat Credit Rules that the address should be that of the head office. For the above proposition he has referred to the various decisions of the Tribunal. 5. We note that the adjudicating authority has not disputed the factum of receipt of various input services, their utilization for providing output services and the factum of any nexus between the input services and the output services. We also find favour with the assessee's contention that inasmuch as output services were being provided from Sector 58 Call Centre and the services were being received at the said premises, the invoices showing the address of sector 58 i.e. the place of actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri-Ahm)] b. Zinc-O-India v. CCE [1996 (88) ELT 373] c. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers vs. D.C. [(1991) 55 ELT 437 (SC)] 6. It stands held in all the above decisions that in the absence of any dispute about the availability of Cenvat credit, the receipt of the input services and use of the same for providing output services, the denial of the credit on the hyper technical ground of the address being different than the one given in the invoices, the denial is neither justified nor proper. It is well settled that substantial benefits cannot be denied on the basis of some procedural lapses. Otherwise also the defect pointed out by the Revenue in the invoices, if any, are rectifiable defects and the denial on the said basis cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company, related to the input services which were actually received by the appellant at their call centre premises and were used for output services. The denial of the credit on the said ground is not justified. Support is drawn from the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Shree Cement [2002 (147) E.L.T. 1031] as also to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Showal India (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. [2012 (25) S.T.R. 152 (Tri. Delhi)]. 9. Further Cenvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 98.00 Lakhs stand denied on the ground that the same was availed prior to the registration. The said issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wirele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
