9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 8 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - eligible input services - services received at the division / other office - input service distributor (ISD) - Held that - there is no scope to have two views regarding the status of ILTD, Guntur, which is factually an integral part of ITC Ltd. In other words, ILTD, Guntur which is an input service distributor registered as such with the service tax wing of the Revenue in Guntur is nothing but ITC Ltd, who is the appellant only, for the purpose of enforcing laws of Central Excise and Service Tax. There have all the proofs been available on record giving clear conclusion that ILTD, Guntur is a part of ITC Ltd., who is the appellant claiming CENVAT Credit for the input services utilised directly or indirectly for the manufacture of the final product of the appellant, when the final product is an excisable commodity and on which the appellant is paying Central Excise duty. In the certificate of registration dated 8.2.2006 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Guntur, it is clearly mentioned that credit of input services is distributed or intended to be distributed to their manufacturing factories of ITC Ltd. at Bangalore (Karnataka), Saharanpur (Uttaranchal), Munger (Bihar). Consequently, Revenue s argument that input service distributor s operations are within the mischief of Rule 7(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules is without any foundation and is hereby rejected. Credit allowed - Decided in favor of assesseee.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit. 2. Status and recognition of ILTD, Guntur as part of ITC Ltd. 3. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically Rule 2(m) and Rule 7. 4. Applicability of Rule 7(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules. 5. Precedents and case laws supporting the appellant's claims. 6. Revenue's argument against the appellant's eligibility for CENVAT credit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit: The appellant, ITC Limited, Bangalore, challenged the order by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II, which denied CENVAT credit of ?3,25,80,308/- and imposed a demand with interest and equivalent penalty. The appellant argued that the credit for service tax on input services was legitimately available under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the distribution was made from their own division, ILTD, which is part of the same legal entity. 2. Status and recognition of ILTD, Guntur as part of ITC Ltd.: The appellant contended that ILTD, Guntur, being the Input Service Distributor (ISD), is an integral part of ITC Ltd. The lower authority erroneously treated ILTD as a separate entity, which vitiated the show-cause notice and the impugned order. The appellant’s registration as an ISD under the Cenvat Credit Rules was never questioned by the Revenue, either at Guntur or Bangalore. 3. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically Rule 2(m) and Rule 7: The appellant argued that Rule 2(m) defines ISD as an office of the manufacturer of final products, which receives invoices and distributes credit to the manufacturer. Rule 7 outlines the manner of distribution of credit by ISD. The appellant relied on several case laws, including decisions by the Tribunal and the apex court, supporting their interpretation that ILTD, Guntur, as a registered ISD, could distribute credit to ITC Ltd. 4. Applicability of Rule 7(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules: The Revenue argued that ILTD, Guntur, could not distribute CENVAT credit as it did not pay Central Excise duty or service tax, thus falling under Rule 7(b). However, the Tribunal found that ILTD, Guntur, is not a separate entity but a division of ITC Ltd., which pays excise duty on its final products. Therefore, the operations of ILTD do not fall within the mischief of Rule 7(b), and the credit distributed by ILTD is admissible to ITC Ltd. 5. Precedents and case laws supporting the appellant's claims: The appellant cited several case laws, including: - ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2010 (17) S.T.R. 515 (Tri.-Bang.) - CCE, Bangalore-I vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd.: 2011 (271) E.L.T. 58 (Kar.) - ITC Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2007 (208) E.L.T. 277 (Tri.-Bang.) - Goa Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Noor Mohammed Sheik Musha and Anor, AIR 2004 SC 3886. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's reliance on these precedents, which established that the ISD could distribute credit to the manufacturing units of the same legal entity. 6. Revenue's argument against the appellant's eligibility for CENVAT credit: The Revenue argued that ILTD, Guntur, is not the same as ITC Ltd., Bangalore, and that the input services did not have a direct or indirect nexus with the manufacture of the final product. The Revenue relied on case laws such as Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore-LTU: 2016 (42) S.T.R. 28 (Tri.-Ban.) and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I: 2013 (31) S.T.R. 667 (Tri.-Mumbai). However, the Tribunal found these arguments and case laws inapplicable, as ILTD, Guntur, and ITC Ltd. are the same entity for the purpose of CENVAT credit distribution. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that ILTD, Guntur, is an integral part of ITC Ltd., and the credit distributed by ILTD is rightly admissible to ITC Ltd. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, and the order denying CENVAT credit was set aside. The Tribunal emphasized that the operations of ILTD, Guntur, do not fall under Rule 7(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, and the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit of ?3,25,80,308/-.
|
