March 2012
(2012) 25 STR 46 (Tri.-Ahmd.) — Parekh Plast (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi.
By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit of the service tax on invoices raised in the name of head office — Head office not registered as input service distributor — Defect in invoices — Procedural defect — Totally curable and condonable — Denial not justified — Also demand barred by limitation — Appellant cannot be impeached alleging misstatement or suppression of fact when no column for the fact to be disclosed in ER 1 itself.
Facts:
The assessee engaged in manufacture of excisable goods availed CENVAT credit of Rs.5,43,200. The Revenue contended that invoices issued by the service provider were in the name of head office. Such availment of credit was held unjustified as head office was not registered as input service distributor. The authority also alleged suppression for the fact that the information was not disclosed in ER 1 Form in order and justified invocation of longer period of limitation.
Held:
It was held that since the law itself does not require the assessees to disclose the above facts, failure to disclose the same cannot be equated with any suppression or misstatement. Invoices issued by the service provider in the name of head office are eligible documents for the purpose of claiming credit.
