CENVAT credit and pre-notice tax payment protect the assessee where registration is not a credit condition and suppression is not shown.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because invoices bear an unregistered premises address where the input services are otherwise eligible and no statute makes registration a condition precedent; the denial on that ground was unsustainable. A notice under section 73(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 also cannot be sustained where service tax and interest were paid and the credit was reversed before notice, and the returns disclosed the material facts, because section 73(3) protection applies absent fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion, or intent to evade. The demand was therefore found unsustainable on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because the invoices were addressed to unregistered premises; and (ii) whether, after reversal of CENVAT credit and payment of service tax before issue of notice, the notice could be sustained by invoking the extended exception under section 73(4) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because the invoices were addressed to unregistered premises.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that registration of the premises with the Service Tax Department is not a condition precedent for availing CENVAT credit. The invoices related to eligible input services and the denial rested only on the absence of registration of the premises. Since no statutory requirement making registration mandatory for credit entitlement was shown, the demand based solely on the address appearing on the invoices could not stand.

Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that the premises were unregistered was unsustainable and is set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, after reversal of CENVAT credit and payment of service tax before issue of notice, the notice could be sustained by invoking the extended exception under section 73(4) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Section 73(3) bars issuance of notice where service tax has been paid and due intimation has been given. The facts recorded showed that the credit was reversed and service tax with interest was paid before the notice was issued, and the relevant returns disclosed the material facts. In the absence of suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade, the exception in section 73(4) could not be invoked to displace the protection under section 73(3).

Conclusion: The notice and consequent demand could not be sustained by resort to section 73(4), and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 73(3).

Final Conclusion: The demand order was unsustainable in law on both the credit issue and the notice issue, and the assessee succeeded on the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of the premises is not a prerequisite for CENVAT credit where the statutory conditions for credit are otherwise satisfied, and a notice is barred under section 73(3) once tax is paid and intimated unless the Department establishes fraud or suppression with intent to evade under section 73(4).

---