Whether the credit is admissible when the bill is in name of head office? Whether procedure of service tax distributor is to be followed?

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1195

CASES: - MILLIPORE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGLORE.

CITATION: - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 582 (TRI-Bang)

ISSUE:- Whether the credit is admissible when the bill is in name of head office? Whether procedure of service tax distributor is to be followed?

BRIEF FACT:- Appellant-assessee had sales offices situated at Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta etc. The appellant took credit on input services on the invoices which were not in the name of the factory but contained the addresses of the sales offices. Department issued show cause notice to the appellant denying the cenvat credit to them, alleging irregular availment of service tax credit. Demand was confirmed and upheld in the first appellate authority. Hence, appellant is before the Tribunal. An application is filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit and for grant of stay.

APPELLANT CONTENTION:- Appellant submitted that the document involved carried the details of service receiver as the assessee with the address of the of its sales office at Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta etc. It was submitted that as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, the prescription that the invoices should carry the details of the manufacturing unit applied only in respect of input and capital good and that the credit was available only in respect of input and capital goods received. As regard input service, credit was admissible in respect such services received by the manufacture of final product or the provider of output service. It is submitted that the services involved were received only by the assessee and that the invoices concerned carried the addresses of the different sales office of the assessee. It is argued that the credit was available in accordance with the law.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:- Revenue submitted that the appellant had not followed the condition prescribed in Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to allow credit to the assessee since the input service as per the invoices was received only by the sales office of the assessee. Another ground for which the credit could not legally allowed is that the relevant invoice did not contained the name and address of the person receiving taxable service.

REASONING OF JUDGEMENT:- The Tribunal found that the input service credit has been denied on the ground that the invoice did not show the name and address of the assessee and that the assessee had not followed the procedures for distribution of credit as prescribed in Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal perused the Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and held that it was not the case of the Revenue that appellant had taken credit in excess of that shown in the invoice or that the appellant was engaged exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods or production of exempted service. In the circumstances, it was found that the appellant has made out a prima facie case against the impugned demand.

Decision: -Waiver of Pre-Deposit and stay granted.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1195

Post a Comment

Query