Order date – 11 November 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, is engaged in the manufacture of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Resin and is registered with the Central Excise Department.
• They are availing the CENVAT Credit of the Excise Duty paid on inputs, capital goods and Service Tax paid on input services. The appellant also availed credit distributed by its Head Office as per Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as an Input Service Distributor (ISD).
• A show-cause notice was issued denying  the CENVAT Credit availed during the period from October 2009 to September 2011 on the grounds that documents based on which credit was availed were defective inasmuch as they did not contain the registration number of the service provider and correct address of the appellant, services were not covered under the definition of “input service” for availment of credit in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and ineligible credit availed on the portion of money retained by the appellant, etc.
• Aggrieved appellant had filed an appeal

Issue –

• Whether the denial of cenvat credit is in order?

Order –

• The Tribunal state that the credit was denied alleging that the invoices were addressed to the Mettur Plant-II even though the credit was availed at the Cuddalore Plant, which is the appellant herein. Though it is alleged that the invoices are mentioned in the name of the Mettur Plant, the Department does not have a case that the services have been availed by the Mettur Plant. The appellant has submitted that the name of the unit was wrongly mentioned by the vendor. Hence credit is allowed to that extend.
• The second ground for denial of credit is that the Service Tax registration number of the service provider is not mentioned in the invoices. The appellant had submitted a copy of invoices which show that the registration number of the service provider was included in the invoices by a handwritten method.
• The Tribunal also finds that the Department has denied the credit alleging that the same was not part of the invoice. When the registration number of the service provider is available for verification, the credit ought not to have been denied merely because it is not mentioned as a ‘part of the invoice’ when the same has been included later. It is held that the denial of credit on this ground cannot be justified.
• In respect of Helipad Repair and Maintenance services, the credit has been availed by the appellant prior to 01.04.2011. The Tribunal also held that during the said period, the definition of “input service” had a wide ambit as it included services in relation to business activities. The denial of credit alleging that the Helipad Repair and Maintenance services do not have nexus with the manufacturing activity is erroneous. Hence the credit is allowed.
• The credit in respect of Banking Charges has been denied by the Department stating that these amounts incurred by the appellant are with regard to the reimbursement of travel expenses. The Banking Charges along with Service Tax were paid by the appellant on the amount that has been transacted through the bank. It is held that the credit on such Banking Charges is eligible and is, therefore, allowed.
• Revenue has argued that the appellant has not been able to produce documents for one-to-one correlation of the credit availed and the amount retained by them. When the entire amount has suffered Service Tax, as reflected from the invoices, there is no requirement for correlation.
• Hence hold that the credit in respect of all the services are eligible, except for those which have been denied on the allegation that documents have not been produced, which are remanded to the Original Authority.