Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Appeal No(s).: E/75048,75091,76076/2015-DB Sl. Issue/Allegation Demand (Rs) No.

1. CENVAT credit availed for brand 89,61,000/-

promotion services in relation to exempted final product in contravention of Rule 6(1) of the CCR as well on the ground that invoice was addressed to head office instead of the manufacturing unit

2. CENVAT credit availed on invoices 26,84,966/- addressed to head office/corp. office of the Assessee and also on some invoices mentioning incorrect address.

2. Rs.26,84,966/- CENVAT credit availed on invoices (Demand of addressed to head office/corp. 26,70,004/- office of the Assessee and also on dropped and some invoices mentioning 14,962/- incorrect address.

confirmed) FINDING- Demand of Appeal No(s).: E/75048,75091,76076/2015-DB Rs.26,70,004/- was dropped on the same finding as mentioned above. Demand of Rs.14,962/-

4.6. Further, it is submitted by the Appellant-

Assessee that similar observations have been made by this Tribunal and various High Courts in the below mentioned rulings:

• Commissioner of C. Ex., Rajkot vs. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators [2002 (140) ELT 277 (Tri-LB)], SLP dismissed by Supreme Court reported as 2003 (156) ELT A212 (SC), Appeal No(s).: E/75048,75091,76076/2015-DB • Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Madurai [2015 (320) ELT 357 (Mad.)], • Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Meerut - I vs. Apco Pharma Ltd [2015 (319) ELT 641 (Uttarakhand)], 4.7. CENVAT credit of Rs. 26,84,966/- availed by the Appellant-Assessee was proposed to be denied on the ground that some of the invoices were addressed to head office/corp. office of the Appellant-Assessee and also some invoices mentioned incorrect address.

On adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority has allowed the CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.26,70,004/- and confirmed the demand of 14,962/- on the ground that address contained in the invoice is not associated with the Appellant- Assessee. The department contended that the Ld. Commissioner has erred in allowing CENVAT Credit of Input Services to the tune of Rs.26,70,004/- without verifying the fact whether those services were actually utilised in the factory in the process of manufacturing or in relation to that. In this regard, the Appellant-Assessee submitted that it is settled position of law that substantive benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied for mere procedural lapse of mentioning incorrect/not proper address in the invoice issued by the service provider. It is further submitted that as per proviso to Rule 9(2) of the CCR, address of service recipient is not a mandatory requirement and hence CENVAT credit cannot be denied. In this regard reliance is placed on the following rulings: