2008 (3) TMI 69 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal allows service tax credit after amendment but upholds disallowance due to incorrect invoice details.

RAAJ KHOSLA & CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of service tax credit amounting to Rs.5,18,027 after the appellant amended the registration certificate to include ... Address of the firm as given in the invoice was different from address given in the registration certificate – contention of the Revenue is that no doubt the invoices were in the name of the appellant but the address is different, so credit is deniable - However, the address is different than the registration certificate. Subsequently, the registration certificate was got amended by the appellant & office address on the invoices were also included in R.C. - denial of credit is not sustainable Issues:1. Disallowance of service tax credit of Rs.5,18,027.2. Disallowance of service tax credit of Rs.57,527.Analysis:1. The appellant contested the disallowance of service tax credit amounting to Rs.5,18,027. The appellant argued that although the invoices were in their name, the address mentioned differed from the one in the registration certificate. It was explained that the appellant operated from various locations, all of which were subsequently registered with the Revenue, and the registration certificate was amended to include the disputed address. Given that the invoices were used in relation to the services provided by the appellant, the credit could not be denied. The Tribunal acknowledged that the invoices bore the appellant's name, albeit with a different address. After the appellant amended the registration certificate to include the address in question, the Tribunal found the denial of credit unjustified and set it aside.2. Regarding the disallowed service tax credit of Rs.57,527, the appellant had taken the credit in the name of 'M/s. Shelters' with the appellant's address provided. The appellant had entered into an agreement with Citibank to use the brand name 'Shelters,' and the telephones were registered under that name. The appellant argued that the services were utilized in connection with the services they provided, thus justifying the credit. However, the Revenue contended that the invoices were in the name of 'M/s. Shelter' without mentioning the appellant's name, thereby rendering the credit unavailable. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's argument, stating that since the duty paying documents were not in the appellant's name, they were not entitled to the credit. Consequently, the denial of this credit was upheld, and the impugned order was modified accordingly.