[2016] 71 taxmann.com 69 (Hyderabad CESTAT) GE India Exports (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II

Facts:
Appellant obtained a centralized registration and filed a refund claim of CENAVT credit which included certain input services for which service provider issued invoices to the unregistered premises under service tax. Refund claim in respect of such invoices was rejected by revenue. It was argued that in terms of Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, invoice bearing service tax registration number of service provider and disclosing the name, address and details of service recipient is valid enough to claim input tax credit and there is no such requirement of stating registered address of service recipient on the invoice.

Held:
Hon’ble Tribunal noted that when the invoice gives detailed description of services performed, when service tax is correctly paid by the service provider and in absence of any express requirement in Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 stating that premises of service recipient has to be registered, department’s act of denying CENVAT credit was invalid and accordingly, appeal was allowed.

[Note: Readers may note that while deciding on similar issue, in case of [2016] 71 taxmann.com 251 Prasad Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Hon’ble Chennai Tribunal held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that service provider has mentioned incorrect address of service recipient on the invoice.]