2012 (10) TMI 183 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Allows Name Change and Rules on Cenvat Credit Eligibility

All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore

The Tribunal, comprising Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mathew John, JJ., allowed the change of cause title application from M/s All Cargo Global Logistics ... Cenvat Credit - Amount in question is Rs. 1,10,33,614/- Appellants are engaged in providing logistic services - Constructed an Internal Container Depot (ICD) at Pithampur in M.P.- During the period from October 2007 to July 2008 the Bills for the construction activity were raised by the constructing company to their head office at Mumbai - The appellant is taking Cenvat credit at their Pithampur ICD against the bills for construction activity for setting up the ICD and raised by the service provider addressed to the Mumbai office. The appellant contended there is no requirement to apply for the registration when premises was under construction and when no service was being provided from Pithampur - There is no time-limit for taking credit based on invoice issued by service provider. Held that:- pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal is waived - in favour of appellant. Issues: Change of cause title application, eligibility for Cenvat credit on construction servicesThe judgment involves two main issues. Firstly, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, addressed a change of cause title application from M/s All Cargo Global Logistics Limited to M/s South Asia Terminals Pvt. Ltd. The application was supported by a certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies, leading the Tribunal to allow the application. Secondly, the Tribunal examined the eligibility for Cenvat credit on construction services provided by the appellants for setting up an Internal Container Depot (ICD) at Pithampur in M.P. The Revenue contended that since neither the head office nor the ICD was registered during the construction period, the appellants were not eligible for Cenvat credit. The appellants argued that they could not have applied for registration during the construction phase and clarified that the credit was taken after registration. The Revenue claimed it was a case of distribution of input service credit, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that all credit was taken at the ICD and there was no time limit for taking credit based on the invoice date.Regarding the change of cause title application, the Tribunal, consisting of Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mathew John, JJ., allowed the application based on the certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies. This decision was straightforward, as the necessary documentation was provided to support the requested change. The Tribunal's ruling in this regard was concise and in line with the evidence presented.On the issue of eligibility for Cenvat credit on construction services, the Tribunal delved into the details of the case. The appellants, engaged in logistic services, constructed an ICD at Pithampur and claimed Cenvat credit for construction bills after registration. The Revenue argued against the credit eligibility due to non-registration during the construction period. The appellants justified their actions by stating that registration was not feasible during construction, and credit was taken only post-registration. The Revenue contended it was a case of input service credit distribution, which the Tribunal rejected. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of a time limit for taking credit based on invoice date and found no merit in the Revenue's demand. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal and stayed the collection of dues pending the appeal process.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the change of cause title application and the eligibility for Cenvat credit on construction services in a thorough and detailed manner. The Tribunal's analysis of the issues involved, along with the arguments presented by both parties, led to a decision in favor of the appellants regarding the Cenvat credit eligibility, emphasizing the absence of a time limit for taking credit and dismissing the Revenue's claims.