Tribunal dismisses Department's appeals on CENVAT Credit, upholding Commissioner's decision.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision in the case, dismissing the Department's appeals on both issues raised. The Department's contention that registration is a prerequisite for availing CENVAT Credit was rejected, citing precedents that absence of registration does not justify denial of credit. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that premature availment of credit is a procedural lapse but does not invalidate the substantive right to credit if conditions are met. Consequently, the Department's appeals were found to lack merit, and all three appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility to avail CENVAT Credit without registration of premises.
2. Availment of CENVAT Credit on inputs or input services before payment of tax.

Summary:

1. Eligibility to Avail CENVAT Credit Without Registration of Premises:
The respondent, M/s. Ad2Pro Global Creative Solutions Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as M/s. Ad2pro Media Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax partially rejected these claims due to non-registration of premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals, stating that the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange is the 'relevant date' under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Department contended that registration is a prerequisite for availing CENVAT Credit. However, the Tribunal referenced multiple judgments, including the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai v. CESTAT, Chennai & Scionspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.)], which held that absence of registration does not justify denial of CENVAT Credit. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, dismissing the Department's appeal on this issue.

2. Availment of CENVAT Credit on Inputs or Input Services Before Payment of Tax:
The respondent admitted to availing CENVAT Credit of Rs.18,169/- prior to the payment of tax, considering it a procedural lapse. The Department argued that credit should be taken only after tax payment, as per Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that the substantive right to CENVAT Credit cannot be denied if conditions like payment of tax and receipt of service are satisfied. Citing cases such as Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II v. White En-All Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (175) E.L.T. 119 (Tri. - Mumbai)], the Tribunal concluded that premature availment of credit is a procedural lapse and does not invalidate the substantive right to credit. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal on this issue as well.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the Department's appeals on both issues and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision. The three appeals filed by the Department were dismissed as not maintainable.

---