Mere Mentioning Of Wrong Address Of Service Provider Is Procedural Defect, Cenvat Credit Can't Be Denied: CESTAT
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the mere mention of the wrong address is a procedural defect and CENVAT credit cannot be denied.The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that once the substantive provisions are complied with for a mere technical lapse, the right to Cenvat...
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the mere mention of the wrong address is a procedural defect and CENVAT credit cannot be denied.
The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that once the substantive provisions are complied with for a mere technical lapse, the right to Cenvat credit cannot be denied.
The appellant/assessee renders travel agent services to its clients, which include booking of air tickets, travel planning, and itinerary management for domestic and international travel, assistance in procuring foreign exchange from authorized money changers, and assistance in filling up the application form for obtaining a visa, and receives consideration.
The department proposed to deny CENVAT credit of Rs. 7,13,481 availed on the strength of invoices issued by Himani Modi. Penalties on the appellant under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act 1994 and interest under sections 75 of the Finance Act and Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 were also proposed. The CENVAT credit was denied on the ground that invoices bear the wrong addresses as 1400, Modi Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
The appellant submitted that the mere mention of the wrong address of the recipient of goods or services in invoices cannot be a ground to deny CENVAT credit when the receipt of goods or services is not in question.
The tribunal noted that CENVAT credit has been denied solely on the grounds of the wrong address of the service provider. There is no dispute over the receipt of the service or the payment made. The registration of the service provider is not in dispute. Thus, once registration of the service provider and rendition of the service and payment thereof are not in dispute, the mere mention of the wrong address is a procedural defect, and CENVAT credit cannot be denied.
Counsel For Appellant: Madhumita Singh
Counsel For Respondent: Rajeev Kapoor
Case Title: M/s. Modiline Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 50242 Of 2017