Case Details: Tulsyan NEC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai (2025) 36 Centax 310 (Tri.-Mad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J) & Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (T)
- Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Ms O.M. Reena, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
An assessee having multiple units had a head office registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), which made payments to suppliers and distributed CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit to the Ambattur unit. Supplier invoices were addressed to the Gummidipoondi unit, which was a unit different from the ISD. Credit taken by the ISD was recorded in the assessee’s CENVAT records, and ISD invoices/statements were issued to the Ambattur unit for distribution. The issue raised was that the credit distribution to the Ambattur unit was questioned because supplier invoices were addressed to a different unit. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that CENVAT credit distributed by the ISD to the Ambattur unit could not be denied merely because supplier invoices were addressed to the Gummidipoondi unit. It was observed that the ISD mechanism contemplates centralised procurement, centralised payment, and the distribution of credit under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal noted that the department had not carried out any exercise to demonstrate statutory exclusion, a lack of nexus resulting in misuse, or any evidence of fabricated invoices, shell suppliers, or circular payments. Accordingly, the denial of credit on the technical ground of a difference in the address mentioned in the supplier invoices was not justified, and the credit was admissible.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Dashion Ltd. — 2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.) — Relied on [Paras 4.5, 4.6, 14]
- Commissioner v. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. — 2011 (271) E.L.T. 58 (Kar.) — Referred [Paras 4.5, 4.6]
- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 132 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 4.5, 4.6, 15]
- Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (38) S.T.R. 830 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 10.1, 10.4]
- Pricol Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2023) 5 Centax 199 (Tri. – Mad.) — Relied on [Para 13]
- Trident Powercraft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (41) S.T.R. 687 (Tribunal) — Referred [Paras 4.5, 4.6]
- Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 26]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 97/8/2007, dated 23-8-2007 [Paras 8.1.2]
