2024 (1) TMI 1210 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT allows CENVAT credit for warehouse rental services and invoices with head office addresses under Rule 4

Roquette Riddhi Siddhi P Ltd Versus C.C.E. -Ahmedabad-II

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, holding that the six-month limitation for CENVAT credit under Rule 4's 3rd Proviso applies only to invoices issued ... CENVAT Credit - Time limitation of Six months for availing the Cenvat credit in terms of 3rd Proviso to Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 brought into effect from 18.09.2014 - applicability to duty paying documents issued prior to 18.09.2014 - Cenvat credit of renting of immovable property service in respect of warehouse located outside the factory - denial on the ground that the invoice from which the credit was availed at the address of head office and hence was not in accordance with Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Whether the limitation of Six months for availing the Cenvat credit in terms of 3rd Proviso to Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 brought into effect from 18.09.2014 is applicable to duty paying documents issued prior to 18.09.2014? - HELD THAT:- In view of the judgment in AALIDHRA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -DAMAN [2020 (1) TMI 1617 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and ROQUETTE RIDDHI SIDDHI PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, BELGAUM [2022 (3) TMI 358 - CESTAT BANGALORE], it is settled that the provision for limitation of Six months/ One Year for availment of credit from the date of invoice, is applicable only in respect of the invoices issued after 18.09.2014. In the present case, since the invoices are prior to 18.09.2014, the limitation of six Months/ one year shall not apply. Hence, the credit on this issue is admissible to the appellant. Whether the Cenvat credit of renting of immovable property service in respect of warehouse located outside the factory is available to the appellant? - HELD THAT:- From the judgments in SAURASHTRA CEMENT LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. - BHAVNAGAR [2018 (8) TMI 460 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and SWISS GLASCOATE EQUIPMENTS VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -VADODARA-I [2022 (3) TMI 47 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], it can be seen that even though services were provided outside the factory premises but the same is in relation to the manufacture of the final product of the appellant the credit was allowed. Following the said judgments, in the present case also the appellant are entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of renting of immovable of property i.e. warehouse located outside the factory premises. Whether the Cenvat credit can be denied on the ground that the invoice from which the credit was availed at the address of head office and hence was not in accordance with Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the service was received by the appellant in their factory. Even though the address of head office is mentioned but so long the input service was received by the appellant for their factory, the credit cannot be denied. There is no case of the department that the credit on such invoice has been taken in appellant’s other unit. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CONSULTANCY ORGNISATION LTD. VERSUS CCE, BHOPAL [ 2017 (4) TMI 954 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that denial of credit only on the ground that the address of branch office or head office was mentioned instead of appellant’s address cannot be the ground for denial of otherwise eligible Cenvat credit - thus, it is settled that merely because the invoice is bearing the address of head office credit to the appellant’s unit cannot be denied. The appellant succeeds on all the three issues and the credit on all the three issues are admissible to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:A) Applicability of the six-month limitation for availing Cenvat credit to duty-paying documents issued prior to 18.09.2014.B) Eligibility of Cenvat credit for renting immovable property services for a warehouse located outside the factory.C) Denial of Cenvat credit based on invoices addressed to the head office, not in accordance with Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Issue A:The Tribunal considered whether the six-month limitation for availing Cenvat credit, introduced by the 3rd Proviso to Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 18.09.2014, applies to duty-paying documents issued before this date. The Tribunal concluded that the limitation does not apply to invoices issued prior to 18.09.2014. This conclusion was supported by several judgments, including Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Belgaum, which stated that the six-month limitation is not retrospective. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to Cenvat credit accrues when the tax on inputs is paid, and this right cannot be retrospectively altered by subsequent amendments.Issue B:The Tribunal addressed whether Cenvat credit is available for renting immovable property services for a warehouse located outside the factory premises. The Tribunal held that such credit is admissible if the warehouse is used for storing raw materials, which is directly related to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including Saurashtra Cement Ltd., which established that services used in relation to the manufacture of final products are eligible for credit, regardless of whether the services are availed inside or outside the factory premises.Issue C:The Tribunal examined whether Cenvat credit can be denied if the invoice is addressed to the head office rather than the factory. The Tribunal found that credit cannot be denied solely on this basis, provided the input service was received and used by the factory. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, such as Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organization Ltd., which clarified that the address on the invoice is not a valid ground for denying credit if the service was indeed received and utilized by the factory. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no requirement for the premises to be registered with the Service Tax Department for availing Cenvat credit.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on all three issues. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.