Tribunal Grants Appeal Allowing CENVAT Credit on Invoices Not Addressed to Registered Premises

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside most demands confirmed by the Commissioner. The Appellant was found eligible for CENVAT credit on invoices not addressed to registered premises. The Tribunal disagreed with the denial of credit and ruled that the registration of premises is not mandatory for availing CENVAT credit. The only amount upheld was Rs. 7,038 for services received from abroad, which was acknowledged and not further contested.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Irregular availment of CENVAT credit on invoices not addressed to the registered premises.
2. Absence of central registration or ISD registration for distributing CENVAT credit.
3. Failure to discharge service tax liability on services received from abroad.
4. Interest liability on late payment of service tax.
5. Non-payment of 8% service tax for exempted services to Special Economic Zone (SEZ).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Irregular Availment of CENVAT Credit on Invoices Not Addressed to the Registered Premises
The Commissioner ruled that the Appellant was not eligible for CENVAT credit on invoices not addressed to the registered premises, citing rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Appellant argued that the registration of premises is not mandatory for availing CENVAT credit, referencing several judgments supporting this view. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, stating that the registration of premises is not a condition for availing CENVAT credit, and thus, the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,30,90,500 was incorrect.

Issue 2: Absence of Central Registration or ISD Registration for Distributing CENVAT Credit
The Commissioner held that the Appellant failed to obtain central registration or ISD registration, which is necessary for availing and distributing CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found this conclusion incorrect, stating there is no law mandating ISD registration as the only way to distribute CENVAT credit. The Tribunal cited previous judgments affirming that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the basis of invoices addressed to unregistered premises.

Issue 3: Failure to Discharge Service Tax Liability on Services Received from Abroad
The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 22,510 out of the total demand of Rs. 2,80,975 for services received from abroad. The Appellant challenged the demand of Rs. 7,038, arguing that no service tax was payable for services imported prior to April 18, 2006, referencing the Bombay High Court judgment in Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India. The Tribunal acknowledged the payment and appropriation of the amount and deemed it unnecessary to decide further on this issue.

Issue 4: Interest Liability on Late Payment of Service Tax
The Appellant paid the interest liability of Rs. 2,99,509 on late payment of service tax and did not challenge this in the appeal. Hence, this issue was not contested further.

Issue 5: Non-Payment of 8% Service Tax for Exempted Services to SEZ
The Commissioner dropped the demand of Rs. 56,09,116 for non-payment of 8% service tax for exempted services to SEZ, stating no reversal is required for services rendered to an SEZ. The Appellant did not challenge this decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the remaining demands confirmed by the Commissioner, except for the appropriated amount of Rs. 7,038. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, affirming that the registration of premises is not mandatory for availing CENVAT credit and that the Appellant was entitled to the credit on invoices addressed to unregistered premises.

---