Tribunal grants CENVAT Credit for input services used at Nasik unit despite invoicing to Pune

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the Appellants were eligible for CENVAT Credit on input services utilized at their Nasik unit, despite being addressed to the head office in Pune. The Tribunal emphasized that the services were indeed utilized at the Nasik unit for manufacturing goods, as evidenced by specific purchase orders and alignment with services rendered. The decision underscored the significance of actual service utilization at the relevant unit in determining credit admissibility, irrespective of invoicing particulars.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on input services addressed to head office but utilized at a different unit.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on input services availed by the Appellants at their Nasik unit, even though the invoices were addressed to their head office in Pune. The Appellants, engaged in manufacturing rail bogies/wagons, claimed that the services were exclusively for their Nasik unit's production. The Appellants argued that despite the invoices being addressed to the head office, the services were utilized at the Nasik unit for manufacturing specialized units like rope roller units (RRUs) and railway bogies. The Appellants contended that the credit should be admissible based on specific purchase orders and utilization of services at the Nasik unit.

The Appellants referred to various judgments to support their argument, emphasizing that the mere addressing of invoices to the head office should not deny the credit. The Revenue, represented by the learned A.R., reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal observed that the Appellants had indeed instructed the service provider to render services at the Nasik unit and raise bills accordingly. The Tribunal noted that the services described in the purchase orders aligned with those rendered at the Nasik unit, as reflected in the invoices addressed to the head office. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the services were received and utilized at the Nasik unit for manufacturing excisable goods, making the Appellants eligible for the credit.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the services were used in or in relation to the production of finished goods at the Nasik unit. The decision highlighted the importance of the actual utilization of services at the specific unit for determining the admissibility of CENVAT Credit, irrespective of the invoicing details.

---