Tribunal Overturns Credit Denial Based on Address Discrepancies

The Tribunal allowed all three appeals, setting aside the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant for their Dasna Unit and the imposition of penalties. The judgment highlighted that denial of credit solely based on address discrepancies in invoices, without evidence of non-utilization of services, is unwarranted. Despite objections raised by the Revenue regarding invoices in the name of the Delhi office, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the utilization of services at the Dasna unit. The decision provides consequential relief to the appellant, emphasizing the importance of evidence in credit denial cases.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant in respect of their Dasna Unit, imposition of penalties on Senior Manager and Manager Finance.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant for their Dasna Unit and the imposition of penalties. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aerated water at two units, faced objections regarding the credit availed during a specific period. The dispute revolved around the eligibility of invoices from service providers, some mentioning the Delhi office address. The appellant also produced invoices from the Delhi office transferring the service tax to the Dasna unit. Despite the Delhi office not being registered as ISD during the relevant period, the Tribunal has established in various cases that non-registration does not warrant credit denial.

The Revenue's case primarily focused on invoices being in the name of the Delhi office and alleged manipulation. However, the Tribunal noted that the credit was not solely based on Delhi office invoices, as original service provider invoices were also presented. The objection regarding the address on the invoices was dismissed, considering the services were utilized at the Dasna unit, not the Delhi office. The absence of allegations of non-receipt or non-utilization of services by the appellant led to the rejection of credit denial solely based on the address discrepancy. The Tribunal cited multiple cases supporting this stance.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and all three appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The judgment emphasizes that denial of credit based solely on the address mentioned in the invoices, without evidence of non-utilization, is unjustified.

---