Tulsyan NEC Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that mere technical defects in supplier invoices are not sufficient to disallow ISD distributed credit. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential benefits.
Facts- M/s. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. Ambattur are manufacturing re-rolled products of steel and had taken Central Excise Registration. They had their office in the same address, where the office of the assessee (distinct from factory) is located, they have also obtained registration as an Input Service Distributor, under Service Tax.
These appeals arise from the denial of input service tax credit distributed by the Input Service Distributor (ISD) of M/s. Tulsyan to its Ambattur unit. The departmental adjudication impugns distribution on multiple grounds, including that supplier invoices were addressed to the Gummidipoondi unit (another Tulsyan unit) and not to the ISD; and that several invoices lacked details of the original service providers and relied upon internal ledger (CWIP) entries.
Conclusion- Held that Courts/Tribunals have consistently held that ISD distributed credit should not be denied on mere technicalities where the substantive documentary trail establishes genuine receipt of service and lawful distribution.
Held that in the absence of any evidence of fabricated invoices, shell suppliers or circular payments, mere technical defects in supplier invoices (invoice addressed to a unit; absence of non-essential particulars) are not sufficient to disallow ISD distributed credit.
