Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 665 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - input services - denial on the ground that the invoices of input services are in the name of the head office and the appellant have not obtained input service distribution registration at the relevant time - Held that: - even though the invoices are in the name of head office, services were received and used in or in relation to the manufacturing and the business activity of the appellant unit as they have only one manufacturing unit. As regard non obtaining registration, the ISD registration is only procedural requirement for the purpose of distributing the CENVAT credit to the various units of the assessee - This tribunal time and again has held that merely because ISD registration is not obtained CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the assessee's manufacturing unit or to the output service provider. Denial also on the ground that services used at different locations - Held that: - even though the services were received at their different location, the CENVAT credit is allowable on the ground that all the locations are working in or in relation to storages and or sale of the goods manufactured by the appellant unit, therefore as per the definition of input service existed during the impugned period, the activities related to the business is also defined as input service therefore for this reason CENVAT credit can also not be denied. Denial also on the ground that appellant also carried out trading activity - Held that: - Cenvat credit proportionate to the percentage of trading turnover, as per the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority is recoverable from the appellant - However, no penalty to be charged on the said proportionate credit. Denial also on the ground that the in certain cases the invoice of the service providers do not bear the registration number - Held that: - there is no allegation that under the said invoice service tax was not discharged therefore merely because registration number of the service provider has not been mentioned, this alone cannot be reason for the denial of credit - Non mention of the registration is merely procedural lapse, for this reason substantial benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied. The appellant is entitle for the CENVAT credit except the CENVAT credit proportionate to trading turnover - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
|