Court allows CENVAT credit despite invoices in head office's name, emphasizing service receipt at factory

The court found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the lower authorities' decision to deny CENVAT credit based on invoices in the head office's name without registration as an input service distributor. The judge ruled that the appellant's receipt of services at the factory and payment of service tax warranted rectification by endorsing invoices in the factory's name. Emphasizing the unjust denial of credit solely due to the head office's name on the invoices, the judge questioned the demand's validity beyond the limitation period, ultimately allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT credit due to invoices being in the name of the head office without registration as an input service distributor.

Analysis:
The appellant wrongly availed Service Tax Credit based on invoices in the name of their Head Office, which did not have registration as an input service distributor. Both lower authorities upheld the demand, interest, and penalties, which the first appellate authority also confirmed. The appellant argued that services were received at the factory, and service tax was paid by the service provider, citing a precedent. The issue revolved around denial of credit due to invoices being in the head office's name without registration as an input service distributor.

The judge found no dispute regarding service receipt at the factory or payment of service tax by the appellant. The judge considered the issue a rectifiable error by endorsing the invoices in the factory's name. Referring to a previous judgment, the judge highlighted that the denial of credit solely based on invoices in the head office's name was unjustified. The judge also noted that the demand was beyond the normal limitation period, questioning the appellant's guilt of suppression or misstatement.

Ultimately, the judge deemed the impugned order unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal. The judgment emphasized rectifying the error by endorsing invoices in the factory's name and highlighted the unjust denial of credit based on the head office's name in the invoices.

---