Tribunal allows Cenvat credit on input services invoiced to unregistered Head Office

The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the demand for recovery of Cenvat Credit on input services invoiced in the name of the Head Office not registered as an Input Service Distributor. The appellant's appeal was allowed, emphasizing that non-registration as an input service distributor should not automatically disentitle the distributor from availing Cenvat credit if full records were maintained, and any irregularity was procedural. The decision underscored the significance of record-keeping and the procedural aspect of registration requirements for Input Service Distributors in determining the admissibility of Cenvat credit on input services.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on input services invoiced in the name of the Head Office not registered as an Input Service Distributor.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand for recovery of Cenvat Credit availed on input services by the appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods. The appellant had availed credit on input services with invoices in the name of their Head Office, which was not registered as an Input Service distributor. The appellant argued that since all input services were received at their factory and used in manufacturing excisable goods, the credit should be admissible despite the invoices being in the name of the Head Office. The appellant cited a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support their argument.

The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal observed that the issue revolved around the invoices not being in the name of the factory at Vadodara but in the name of the Head Office, which was not registered as an Input Service Distributor. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case where it was noted that non-registration as an input service distributor should not automatically disentitle the distributor from availing Cenvat credit, especially when full records were maintained, and any irregularity was procedural. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should not be denied the Cenvat credit merely due to the procedural irregularity of the Head Office not being registered as an Input Service Distributor.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per the law. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining records and the procedural nature of the registration requirement for Input Service Distributors in determining the admissibility of Cenvat credit on input services.

---