Tribunal permits Cenvat credit despite differing addresses, ruling in favor of appellant.

The tribunal allowed the appeals, permitting the appellant to avail Cenvat credit despite invoices with different addresses. Emphasizing that all services were utilized by the appellant and no evidence of duplication existed, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. Citing previous judgments, it was held that credit could be claimed at any location within the same company without risk of duplication. The impugned order was set aside, and the decision was rendered on 31/07/2017.

---

---

Issues:
Availment of Cenvat credit based on invoices with different addresses.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant availing Cenvat credit for various input services invoiced from their branch office or Delhi office. The appellant's counsel argued that despite the address discrepancy on certain invoices, all services were utilized by the appellant, and the company name was correctly mentioned. It was emphasized that there was no evidence of services being used at a different location or credit being availed twice. The counsel cited multiple judgments supporting their stance, highlighting that credit could be availed at any location within the same company as long as it was not duplicated. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, but the tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, concluded that as all locations belonged to the same company, credit could be availed at any place without the risk of duplication. The tribunal relied on the judgments presented by the appellant's counsel and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals. The decision was pronounced in court on 31/07/2017.

---