2015 (2) TMI 143 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant wins dispute over Cenvat credit for services at unregistered branch office

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the dispute over Cenvat credit for services received by their unregistered branch office. Despite ... CENVAT Credit - Repair and maintenance service - Service availed by branch office by credit availed by Head office - Held that:- there is otherwise no dispute about the fact that Kota office has received the input services and were entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the same. However, inasmuch as they were not registered with the service tax department for payment of service tax on the output service, which was being discharged by their Udaipur head office, the credit was actually availed at Udaipur. Revenue’s objection is that invoices were in the name of Kota stand rectified by the appellant by way of producing a certificate from the service provider clarifying that address may be read as Udaipur head office address. - no valid reason for denial of credit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Dispute related to Cenvat credit availed by the appellant for services received by their branch office.2. Entitlement of the appellant to avail credit for services received by the branch office not registered with the Service Tax department.3. Rectification of address-related issue raised by the Revenue.4. Validity of denial of credit and the decision of the impugned order.Analysis:1. The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the Cenvat credit of &8377; 3,98,770/- availed by the appellant for services received by their branch office at Kota. The appellant, engaged in sales and services of cumin products, has a head office in Udaipur and another branch office in Kota. The services of repair and maintenance were received at the Kota office, which was not registered with the Service Tax department, and the Service Tax liability was discharged by the Udaipur head office.2. Revenue initiated proceedings contending that since the input services were received at Kota and invoices were in the name of Kota, Udaipur was not entitled to avail the credit. The appellant argued that as Udaipur was discharging the Service Tax liability of the Kota branch for the output services, they should be allowed to avail the credit. The appellant rectified the issue by producing a certificate from the service provider changing the address to that of the Udaipur head office.3. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Kota office received the input services and was entitled to the Cenvat credit. However, since the branch was not registered for Service Tax payment on output services, the credit was availed at the Udaipur head office. The objection raised by Revenue regarding the invoices in the name of Kota was resolved by the appellant providing a certificate from the service provider clarifying the address as that of the Udaipur head office.4. After considering the facts and submissions, the Tribunal found no valid reason to deny the credit to the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of proper documentation and compliance in availing Cenvat credit, emphasizing the rectification of any discrepancies to ensure entitlement to the credit.