Order Date – 29 January 2024

Parties: Roquette Riddhi Siddhi P Ltd Vs C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii

Facts –

• The Appellant, Roquette Riddhi Siddhi P Ltd, have availed Cenvat Credit and which was denied on the ground that the limitation of Six months for availing the Cenvat credit in terms of 3rd Proviso to Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has elapsed and  Cenvat Credit is not available on renting of immovable property service in respect of warehouse located outside the factory and invoice from which the credit was availed at the address of head office and hence was not in accordance with Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue –

• Whether the denial of Cenvat credit is proper?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that all the invoices were issued prior to 18.09.2014. Therefore, the 3rd Proviso to Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inserted with effect from 18.09.2014 shall not apply in respect of the invoices issued prior to 18.09.2014. Accordingly, on that basis the Cenvat credit could not have been dis-allowed.
• Even though services were provided outside the factory premises but the same is in relation to the manufacture of the final product of the appellant the credit was allowed in the case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd. In the present case also the appellant are entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of renting of immovable of property i.e. warehouse located outside the factory premises.
• The service was received by the appellant in their factory. Even though the address of head office is mentioned but so long the input service was received by the appellant for their factory, the credit cannot be denied. There is no case of the department that the credit on such invoice has been taken in appellant’s other unit. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organization Ltd.
• Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.