2015 (3) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal waives predeposit, grants relief on denied CENVAT credit, influenced by legal precedents

Anabond Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai -III

The Tribunal granted the appellant's stay application, waiving the predeposit of tax, interest, and penalty amounting to &8377;46,360/- related to the ... Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of CENVAT credit - name and address of their marketing office is not included in the ISD registration certificate at the time of filing for registration - Held that:- Prima facie, the issue relates to availment of credit based on the distribution of credit by the ISD distributor. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (2014 (5) TMI 640 - Karnataka High Court) and the decision of the Tribunal, prima facie, the case merits waiver of predeposit. Accordingly, I grant waiver of predeposit of dues and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted. Issues: Denial of CENVAT credit based on ISD registration certificateAnalysis:The issue in this case pertains to the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to &8377;46,360/- to the appellant based on the invoices issued by an input service distributor. The appellant filed a stay application seeking waiver of predeposit of tax, interest, and penalty. The crux of the matter revolves around the allegation in the show-cause notice that the name and address of the appellant's marketing office were not included in the ISD registration certificate at the time of filing for registration. The appellant's counsel argued that the denial of credit extended beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, as the adjudicating authority based its decision on the admissibility of CENVAT credit. The counsel contended that the appellant should be eligible to avail the credit for the service utilized for security service by their marketing office, citing legal precedents such as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CCE Vs. Swarnagiri Wire Insulations Pvt. Ltd. and Tribunal judgments in other cases.Revenue's Argument:On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the learned AR, contended that the appellant was not entitled to avail the CENVAT credit since the input service related to the marketing office could not be utilized by the appellant. Additionally, it was highlighted that the invoice was not addressed to the marketing office, further supporting the denial of credit.Judgment and Decision:After hearing both sides, the Tribunal opined that the issue primarily revolved around the availment of credit based on the distribution of credit by the ISD distributor. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Tribunal's previous rulings, the Tribunal found merit in granting a waiver of predeposit. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of predeposit of dues and stayed the recovery during the pendency of the appeal. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal.