Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on input service invoices bearing the addresses of branch offices that were not separately registered, where the branch offices received the services, the invoices were accounted for in the Mumbai head office, and the assessee had centralized registration and accounting.
Analysis: The invoices showed the branch office names and addresses and contained particulars sufficient for availing credit. The services were received by the branches for rendering output services, the output service tax liability was discharged, and the Mumbai office maintained centralized accounting for the transactions. The absence of separate registration of the branch premises did not, on these facts, justify denial of credit, and the issue stood covered by the cited Tribunal decisions supporting credit at the centralized location.
Conclusion: CENVAT credit was correctly allowed and the Revenue's objection was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The order allowing credit on the disputed invoices was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit on input services cannot be denied merely because the invoices bear branch office addresses or the premises receiving the services was not separately registered, where the services were actually received for output services and were accounted for through a centralized system.