Tribunal confirms duty demand for inadmissible credits, upholding eligibility for Cenvat Credit without explicit registration.

Commissioner of Central Tax Pune II Versus Entercoms Solutions (P) Ltd

Commissioner of Central Tax Pune II Versus Entercoms Solutions (P) Ltd - TMI Issues:
Confirmation of duty demand for recovery of inadmissible credits under Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1993 - Appeal by Revenue Department against setting aside of duty demand - Availment of Cenvat Credit on input services at unregistered premises - Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Validity of invoices for availing credit - Applicability of Rule 9 of CCR 2004 - Dispute on registration of premises - Judicial precedents on similar cases - Eligibility of Cenvat Credit for input services utilized for output services - Incorporation of correct address in registration certificate - Admissibility of credit without registration of units.

Analysis:

1. Confirmation of duty demand and Appeal: The judgment revolves around the confirmation of duty demand amounting to Rs. 3,33,217 for recovery of inadmissible credits under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1993. The Revenue Department appealed against the setting aside of this duty demand by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax, Pune in an order dated 20-04-2018.

2. Availment of Cenvat Credit: The case involved the respondent availing Cenvat Credit on input services received at an unregistered premises situated on the 5th floor of a building, while the 3rd floor was registered in the ST-2 certificate. The services included renting of immovable property, cleaning, housekeeping, and security before the premises were included in the registration certificate from 18-05-2016.

3. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules: The appeal focused on the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, specifically Rule 3(1), Rule 4(a) of the Service Tax Rule, and Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand based on the wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on common input services and services of renting immovable property at unregistered premises.

4. Validity of Invoices and Registration: The dispute also centered around the validity of invoices for availing credit, especially concerning the address mismatch in the invoices and the registration certificate. The respondent argued that the registration certificate incorporated the disputed 5th-floor premises on 18-05-2016, with the same registration number as the 3rd floor.

5. Judicial Precedents and Eligibility of Credit: The respondent cited judicial precedents like mPortal India, Imagination Technologies, and Curadev Pharma to support their case. They argued that the credit cannot be denied solely for not obtaining service tax registration for an additional unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to relevant case laws and found in favor of the appellant.

6. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit: The Commissioner (Appeals) opined that the appellant was eligible to avail Cenvat Credit for input services used for output services, even if the address on the invoices did not match the registration certificate. He invoked the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of CCR 2004 to support this decision.

7. Final Decision: The Tribunal found no irregularity in the Commissioner (Appeals) reasoned order and dismissed the appeal. The order confirming the duty demand was upheld, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly. The judgment reiterated the consistent stance of the Tribunal in allowing Cenvat Credit for units/premises of a registered service provider, even without explicit registration.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the core issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies and arguments presented by both parties.