2023 (5) TMI 973 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - denial of credit on the ground that some of the invoices raised by the service provider were showing the address of Appellant’s registered office at Kolkata - suppression of facts or not - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly there is no dispute that the services were received by the Appellant in their factory premises as is established from the copies of the sample Invoices provided by the Appellant. The Tribunals have been consistently holding that when the service is received and utilized in the factory and the invoices are raised in the address of the Head office, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied.

In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & C. EX., VAPI VERSUS DNH SPINNERS [2009 (7) TMI 130 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], the Tribunal has held The Revenue in their grounds has raised only technical grounds that the documents were not in the name of the assessee’s factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds. I do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In the case of PAREKH PLAST (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI [2011 (6) TMI 595 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], the Tribunal has held the denial on the sole ground of invoices being in the name of head office, is not justified.

Since the issue is squarely covered by the cited case laws, appeal is allowed.