Appeal granted for Cenvat credit, except for trading activities, emphasizing procedural fairness.

The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting Cenvat credit except for the proportionate amount related to trading activities. The decision emphasized that procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits, aligning with precedents set by various judgments. The ruling was pronounced on 24/4/2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-obtaining of Input Service Distribution (ISD) registration.
2. Usage of input services at head office and various depots.
3. Trading activity conducted by the appellant.
4. Invoices lacking service provider's registration number.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-obtaining of Input Service Distribution (ISD) registration:
The appellant contended that the denial of Cenvat credit due to the lack of ISD registration was erroneous. They argued that since they had only one manufacturing unit, the ISD registration was not necessary. The tribunal agreed, stating that ISD registration is a procedural requirement meant for distributing services across multiple units, which was not the case here. The tribunal cited several judgments, including Doshion Ltd Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad and Demosha Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE & ST, Daman, which support the view that procedural lapses should not result in the denial of Cenvat credit. The tribunal concluded that the credit could not be denied on these grounds.

2. Usage of input services at head office and various depots:
The appellant argued that services used at the head office and other locations were related to their overall business activities, which are connected to the manufacture and sale of their goods. The tribunal upheld this argument, referencing the definition of input services at the relevant time, which included services related to business activities. Judgments such as Coca Cola India Ltd Vs. CCE, Pune-III and CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd supported this view. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that Cenvat credit should not be denied for services used at different locations.

3. Trading activity conducted by the appellant:
The appellant conceded that a portion of their turnover related to trading activities and agreed to reverse the proportionate Cenvat credit. The tribunal accepted this concession and ruled that the Cenvat credit proportionate to the trading turnover should be reversed. However, no penalty was imposed for this reversal.

4. Invoices lacking service provider's registration number:
The appellant argued that the absence of the service provider's registration number on some invoices was a procedural lapse and should not result in the denial of Cenvat credit. The tribunal agreed, noting that there was no allegation that the service tax was not paid. Citing judgments like Formika India Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner, the tribunal concluded that substantial benefits should not be denied due to procedural infractions. Therefore, the credit should not be denied on this ground.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal partly, granting Cenvat credit except for the proportionate amount related to trading activities. The decision emphasized that procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits, aligning with the precedents set by various judgments. The ruling was pronounced in court on 24/4/2017.

---