9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 29 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - Whether appellant as Zonal Audit Office of PNB could take Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued in their name and distribute the same to the branches as input service distributor - Held that - there is no dispute that the services in question had been received and are covered by the definition of Input service and if the appellant had obtained separate registration as input service distributor there would have been no objection to availing Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices in the name of Zonal Audit Office and distributing the same to the branches of PNB. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when the Appellant though not providing the banking/financial services were registered as provider of banking service since 2004 they should be treated as registered as ISD also as they were for all practical purposes functioning as input service distributor and the availment of service tax credit and its distribution to various branches by issue of invoices were being reflected in the ST-3 returns being filed by them which is what a registered Input Service Distributor would have done. Appellant could take the Cenvat credit and distribute the same by issuing invoices to their branches. The impugned order is therefore not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement of the appellant to avail and distribute Cenvat credit without separate ISD registration Relevant legal framework and precedents: The concept of Input Service Distributor was introduced by amendments to the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 7-6-2005. Under this framework, a head office or a unit of a company providing taxable services, which receives input services, can avail Cenvat credit on invoices issued in its name and distribute such credit to its branches or units by issuing ISD invoices. The ISD must obtain separate registration as per the rules. Precedents cited by the Department included the Tribunal judgments in Khaitan Electricals v. C.C.E., Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Acro Paints Ltd. v. C.C.E., and Lotte India Corporation Ltd. v. C.C.E., which emphasize the necessity of proper ISD registration for lawful availment and distribution of credit. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had service tax registration for banking services since 30-10-2004 but was not registered as an ISD during the relevant period (January 2008 to March 2009). The appellant's role was limited to auditing the branches and not providing banking or financial services themselves. The branches were separately registered and directly providing taxable services. Despite this, the appellant availed Cenvat credit on input services received in its name and distributed the credit to branches by issuing invoices, effectively functioning as an ISD without formal registration as such. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's activities-availing credit and distributing it to branches-were reflected in their ST-3 returns, consistent with the statutory requirement for ISDs. Given these facts, the Tribunal held that the appellant should be treated as an ISD for practical purposes, even though a formal ISD registration was not obtained. Key evidence and findings: There was no dispute that the services received by the appellant qualified as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant had service tax registration for banking services, and the credit was taken on invoices issued in the name of the Zonal Audit Office. The appellant distributed the credit to the branches by issuing invoices, a process consistent with the ISD mechanism. The appellant did not provide banking services themselves but audited the branches. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the ISD provisions and observed that the appellant's conduct aligned with the statutory scheme of ISD operation, except for the absence of separate ISD registration. Since the appellant was registered for banking services and was effectively performing the functions of an ISD, the absence of formal ISD registration did not justify denial of credit or recovery. Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that since the appellant was not registered as an ISD, the credit availed and distributed was improper and liable to be recovered with penalty. The Department relied on established precedents requiring strict compliance with ISD registration requirements. The appellant contended that they were under the impression that their existing service tax registration sufficed for credit distribution and that the credit availed was legitimate. The Tribunal found the appellant's position reasonable in the context of their function and registration history. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, despite not having separate ISD registration, was entitled to avail and distribute Cenvat credit as an ISD in the circumstances. The impugned order demanding recovery of credit and imposing penalty was set aside. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held:
Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
