Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
The CESTAT, Chennai in M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 40047 of 2019 & 40072 of 2021 dated January 27, 2022] set aside the order of the Revenue Department rejecting the CENVAT credit of the assessee. Held that, CENVAT credit cannot be denied due to the reason that the invoices were issued in the name of head offices with centralised registration. The purpose of taking centralized registration is to help the manufacturer for availment of credit as well as distribution of credit.
Facts:
M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is engaged in the manufacture of steel furniture who availed CENVAT credit on inputs, input services and capital goods.
Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) noticed that, the Appellant availed CENVAT credit on commissioning and installation services which appeared to be ineligible in terms of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (“the CENVAT Rules”) during the period from November 2015 to October 2016 and May 2017 to June 2017. Accordingly, Show Cause Notices (“SCNs”) and Statements of Demands (“SODs”) were issued to recover the ineligible credit and afterwards demand of recovery with the interest was confirmed with penalties imposed vide Order-in Original (“OIO”) dated June 29, 2018 passed by the Respondent.
Aggrieved by OIO, the Appellant filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the decision of the Respondent. Hence, the Appellant has filed this appeal.
The Appellant contended that, the order was confirmed by stating that the invoice is issued in the name of their Head office at Bombay whereas the service of installation and commissioning has been rendered at Ambattur plant in Chennai. There is no such allegation in SCNs / SODs which confirms that credit has been availed on the invoices issued in the name of their Head office situated at Mumbai.
Issue:
Whether CENVAT credit can be rejected merely on the ground that invoices were issued in the name of Head office whereas the services were rendered at a different location?
Held:
The CESTAT, Chennai in Excise Appeal No. 40047 of 2019 & 40072 of 2021 dated January 27, 2022 held as under:
