CA Bimal Jain
Gail India Ltd. (“the Appellant”) has obtained Centralized Registration on February 25, 2010 which included Vaghodia compressor station (“branch office”). The Appellant was availing Cenvat credit on capital goods and input services received and used at Vaghodia compressor station. But the Department denied Cenvat credit availed for the period prior to February 25, 2010 on the ground that the invoices were in the name of branch office, which was not registered.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relied upon the decisions of Tribunal in the case of Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mangalore [2009 (10) TMI 434 – CESTAT, BANGALORE] and Well Known Polyesters Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Vapi [2011 (1) TMI 664 – CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], wherein it was clearly declared the principle that if a person is discharging Service tax liability from his registered premises, the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service tax paid by the service provider cannot be denied, only on the ground that the invoices were issued in the name of branch offices, which was not registered.
There are various other judgments also on similar issues of Cenvat credit availment when invoices were issued in the name of branch offices, neither included in centralized registration or nor separately registered:
- Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mangalore [2009 (10) TMI 434 – CESTAT, BANGALORE];
- Portal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Bangalore [2011 (9) TMI 450 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT];
- Allspheres Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2015 (8) TMI 953 – (CESTAT DELHI)].
(Author can be reached at Email: firstname.lastname@example.org)