Tribunal allows Cenvat Credit despite temporary office address. No misuse found. Impugned order set aside.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 34,535. Despite invoices being addressed to a temporary office, the appellants were entitled to credit as they had registered their premises with service tax. The dispute arose during the business setup period, and the Tribunal found no evidence of misuse. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to disallowance of Cenvat Credit for capital goods and input services.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the disallowance of Cenvat Credit for capital goods and input services. The appellants were involved in the dealership of Yamaha Two Wheeler Vehicles and later started a Maruti four-wheeler dealership. Initially, the administrative office of the Maruti dealership was shown at the address of the appellant's Yamaha showroom. The dispute arose regarding the utilization of Cenvat credit during the period from 1.10.2004 to 30.9.2005. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the invoices were addressed to the appellant's Yamaha showroom address and that the other premises of the Maruti dealership were not registered during the relevant time.

The appellants argued that the capital goods and input services were used in the Maruti Sales Showroom & Workshop even though the premises were registered later. They contended that the initial use of the Yamaha showroom address as the administrative office of the Maruti dealership was due to the start-up process. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that separate registration for all premises where services were provided was required. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the appellant needed time to set up the business premises before applying for service tax registration. The Department did not dispute the utilization of capital goods in the workshop, and certificates confirmed the supply of goods to the workshop. The Tribunal found no evidence that the invoices were bogus or sham documents.

The Tribunal emphasized that the rules regarding invoice details aim to prevent misuse of Cenvat Credit. Despite the invoices being addressed to the temporary administration office, the appellants were entitled to the credit as they had registered their premises with service tax. The dispute arose during the period of setting up the business. Consequently, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellants, allowing the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 34,535 and setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.

---