Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 232 - AT - Service TaxPrinciple of seperate purposes - CENVAT credit - renting of immovable property service - forged invoices, on which credit availed - invoices instead of being in the name of appellants, were in the name of Shri D.C. Shah and Others - appellant claims that the name D.C. Shah and Others is used synonymously with that of the individual co-owners of the block - reliance was placed in the case of Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2009 (4) TMI 142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], by the appellant. Held that: - I find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order - Just because D.C. Shah & Co. signifies the 23 appellants, they cannot be allowed to avail the CENVAT credit individually on the basis of invoice which is in the name of D.C. Shah & Co. When all the appellants can get registered individually and separately and maintain all the records accordingly, what made them not to follow the same fashion in case of availment of CENVAT credit is not forthcoming. Under any circumstances an individual cannot avail CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices which is not in his name. The appellants are replying on cases wherein CENVAT credit was allowed to individual factory on the basis of invoices in the name of head office is irrelevant to the present case. The appellants are not branch offices and the D.C. Shah & Co. is not the head office. For registration sake all individual appellants are separate entities but only for availing CENVAT credit they are joint entity. This type of change of principle for separate purposes is not justified. Under this I hold that all the above appellants are not eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices issued in the name of D.C. Shah and Co. Further, the case law relied upon by the appellant, is not applicable to the case in hand, as the case relates to the CENVAT credit of branch office and Head Office which is altogether different then the facts involved in the present appeals. I find no merit in the appeals of the appellants and uphold the impugned order by dismissing all the appeals of the appellants - CENVAT credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee.
|