2016 (12) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of credit distribution - the head office is not registered with the Central Excise department as input service distributor - Held that - In a similar set of facts in the case of Samita Conductors Ltd. 2012 (11) TMI 432 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , where only ground on the basis of which the credit has been denied is that the registration number was not available and this has been explained subsequently by the respondent by explaining by the time instructions were issued by the Government, the Head office had already issued the invoice and therefore, procedural requirement could not be fulfilled, credit allowed. I hold that in this case, the appellant has taken the credit righty. Consequently, the impugned order deserves no merits - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Registration of head office as input service distributor with the Central Excise department.
2. Denial of credit distribution by the Revenue.
3. Applicability of previous judgments.
4. Verification of receipt of input services.
5. Compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The judgment addresses the issue of the head office not being registered as an input service distributor with the Central Excise department, leading to the Revenue's contention that credit distribution cannot be allowed. The Tribunal refers to a previous case and emphasizes that the registration status of the head office does not affect the distribution of credits. The Tribunal notes that the Revenue's argument regarding the inapplicability of a previous judgment is unfounded as the principles of cenvat credit on input services remain consistent. The Tribunal highlights the importance of verifying the receipt of input services as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and criticizes the appellant's submission for deviating from the legal requirements. The Tribunal upholds the Commissioner's decision to allow credit distribution and dismisses the Revenue's appeal.

Regarding the denial of credit distribution by the Revenue, the Tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, stating that in such a scenario, the credit cannot be denied. The Tribunal asserts that the appellant rightfully availed the credit, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The judgment concludes by affirming the appellant's entitlement to the credit and overturning the decision that denied the distribution of credits.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the legal standing on the registration of the head office, denial of credit distribution, applicability of previous judgments, verification of input services receipt, and compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal emphasizes the consistent application of cenvat credit principles, the necessity of verifying input services receipt, and the importance of adhering to legal provisions. The decision ultimately favors the appellant, upholding their right to credit distribution and setting aside the initial denial by the Revenue.