Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 229 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat credit on various input services - registration number of service provider not indicated in the invoices - input services do not qualify as input services and are not related to manufacturing process - invoices issued by the service provider are in the name of the Head Office and not the factory where the credit is availed. Held that:- the various input services involved in the present case are related to the business of the appellant. As far as Custom House Agent Services are concerned, it is found that these services are used for export of finished goods and therefore they qualify as “input service” and the service tax paid on CHA services are eligible as Cenvat credit as held in CCE, Mysore Vs. Chamundi Textiles Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 450 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] and CCE, Rajkot Vs. Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (2) TMI 770 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]. In view of the various judgments and circular issued by the CBEC dated 20.10.2014, mere non-mentioning of the registration number of the service provider on invoices is not fatal to the case of the appellant as it is only a procedural violation and substantive rights cannot be denied on mere procedural violations. I also hold that the appellant cannot be denied the cenvat credit with regard to the service tax paid on the invoices issued to the Head Office rather than the factory which has actually utilized the services so long as the inputs services are received and utilized by the appellant. This at best can only be termed as procedural violation which is not fatal to the right of the appellant. Therefore keeping in view the submissions made by both the parties and the law cited at bar, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
|