2017 (3) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants CENVAT credit despite unregistered head office

Transpek Silox Industry Ltd Versus C.C.E. & Cus., Vadodara

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order that denied the appellant the CENVAT credit for services utilized at the head office not ... CENVAT credit - whether the appellants are eligible to avail credit at their factory, when the entire input services have been received and utilized for their business activity at their head office which was not registered as ISD? - Held that: - The issue is no more res integra and settled by the Hon’ble High Court at Gujarat in Dashion Limited case [2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], laying down the principle that non-registration of the head office as an input service distributor cannot be a factor for denying the credit at the factory - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Eligibility of availing CENVAT credit at the factory when input services were received and utilized at the head office not registered as Input Service Distributor (ISD).Analysis:The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, & Customs, Vadodara, regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 3,91,683 for services received at the head office not registered as ISD. The appellant availed credit on various services like Advertizing Services, Consulting Engineers Services, Chartered Accountant Services, etc., for the period from January 2010 to October 2010. The demand notice was issued for recovery of the credit, interest, and penalty, which was confirmed upon adjudication. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to the present appeal.The appellant argued that the services for which CENVAT credit was availed are considered input services based on judgments of High Courts and Tribunals. They cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a specific case to support their contention. On the other hand, the A.R. for Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).The crucial issue addressed was the eligibility of the appellants to avail credit at their factory for services utilized at the head office not registered as ISD. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a specific case, which established that non-registration of the head office as an ISD cannot be a reason to deny credit at the factory. The Tribunal highlighted that the Rules did not automatically disentitle an input service distributor from availing CENVAT credit solely due to non-registration, especially when full records were maintained, and any irregularity was procedural. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant as per law.