Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 758 - CESTAT MUMBAICENVAT Credit - ISD - credit availed on the basis of the invoice issued at its unregistered address at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh from where no output service was provided - it was also alleged that address was not registered as Input Service Distributor. HELD THAT:- The service have actually been provided to the Appellant but inadvertently the address of Hyderabad Unit was mentioned on the invoices. Revenue has not disputed that the service in question is an input service. It is also not the case of Revenue that no service tax has been paid. Whether the mentioning of registered premises on the invoice is mandatory in order to claim cenvat credit? - HELD THAT:- This issue is no more res integra. In the matter of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], a similar question arises for consideration of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon’ble High Court while answering the question in favour of assessee held that In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Since it is merely procedural lapse due to which substantive benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the Appellant therefore there is no need to go into this aspect - As the Appellant has rightly availed the cenvat credit therefore there is no question of imposition of penalty or interest and since I am allowing the appeal on this issue itself therefore I am not going into other aspects of the matter viz. Issue of extended period etc. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|