CENVAT credit of Rs. 77 lakh allowed despite invoice errors when service receipt proven

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, granting CENVAT credit of Rs. 77,74,439/- to the appellant. The tribunal held that Section 11A's one-year limitation for duty demand cannot be applied to CENVAT credit availment, as CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 are independent. Credit was allowed despite invoices lacking service tax registration numbers or containing clerical errors in party names, as actual receipt and use of services was undisputed. However, CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,189/- for security services used at director's residential premises was properly reversed and upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit due to delayed availing.
2. Denial of Cenvat credit for security services used for residential premises.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit due to invoices not pertaining to the appellant.
4. Denial of Cenvat credit due to missing service tax registration numbers on invoices.

Summary:

1. Denial of Cenvat Credit Due to Delayed Availing:
The appellant was denied Cenvat credit of Rs. 77,74,439/- on the grounds that it was availed after a period of 1 to 4 years. The Tribunal found this reasoning to be "absolutely absurd and not relevant," noting that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, are independent and do not import time limits from Section 11A. The Tribunal emphasized that during the relevant period, no time limit was prescribed for availing Cenvat credit. The appellant provided sufficient evidence, including Chartered Accountant certificates and account books, proving the receipt and payment for input services. The Tribunal cited multiple judgments, including from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Global Ceramic Pvt Ltd, supporting the position that no retrospective time limit applies for availing Cenvat credit. Thus, the Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for the Cenvat credit of Rs. 77,74,439/-.

2. Denial of Cenvat Credit for Security Services Used for Residential Premises:
The Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,21,112/- was denied as it included security services for the residential premises of the director. The appellant conceded that a small part of the service was related to the residential premises and reversed the credit of Rs. 8189/-. The Tribunal upheld this reversal but allowed the remaining credit, which was used for business activities.

3. Denial of Cenvat Credit Due to Invoices Not Pertaining to the Appellant:
The credit of Rs. 75,762/- was denied on the grounds that the invoices did not pertain to the appellant. The Tribunal found that there was no dispute regarding the receipt and use of the input service, and the invoices were accounted for in the appellant's books. The Tribunal held that credit cannot be denied merely due to clerical errors in the invoices and allowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 75,762/-.

4. Denial of Cenvat Credit Due to Missing Service Tax Registration Numbers on Invoices:
The credit of Rs. 1,82,602/- was denied because the invoices did not contain the service tax registration number of the supplier. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the receipt and use of the services or the payment for the invoices. It cited several judgments, including from the Bangalore and Mumbai Tribunals, which held that credit cannot be denied for minor procedural lapses if the substantive requirements are met. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is eligible for the Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,82,602/-.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the Cenvat credits for all the disputed amounts, and set aside the impugned order with consequential relief.

---