9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 216 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the input service invoice the Mumbai address is mentioned whereas the credit was taken by the appellant in their factory address which is different from the Mumbai address - nexus between the input services in question and manufacturing of the final product. Denial on the ground that the input service invoices bear the name of appellant s Mumbai office - HELD THAT - In this regard on going through the ISD invoices and the submission made by the learned counsel we find that the entire allegation in the Show cause notice is incorrect in as much as the appellant claimed that the cenvat credit was taken on ISD invoice. It appears that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the ISD invoices, if it is found that the appellant has taken the credit not on the basis of invoices issued to their Mumbai office but on the ISD invoice which are obviously bearing the name and address of the appellant factory, the appellant is premia facie eligible for credit. Nexus of input service in question with the manufacturing activity of the appellant - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res- integra as in respect of all the input services in question, the Tribunal in one or more judgments allowed the cenvat credit holding that there is a nexus between the input services and manufacturing of the final product - Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. AHLCON PARENTERALS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE CENTRAL GST, JAIPUR 2022 (7) TMI 1180 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that credit allowed in similar circumstances - the entire matter needs to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Authority keeping in mind. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the present case are: 1. Whether the cenvat credit availed by the appellant can be denied based on discrepancies in the address on the input service invoice. 2. Whether there is a nexus between the input services and the manufacturing of the final product. Issue 1 - Address Discrepancy on Invoice: The appellant claimed that the credit was taken on ISD invoice, not on the basis of invoices issued to their Mumbai office. The Tribunal found that the allegation in the Show Cause Notice was incorrect as the ISD invoices bore the name and address of the appellant factory. Therefore, the appellant was prima facie eligible for credit. Issue 2 - Nexus between Input Services and Manufacturing: The appellant cited various judgments where the Tribunal allowed cenvat credit for input services similar to those in question, establishing a nexus with the manufacturing of the final product. The Tribunal agreed that the credit cannot be denied on the ground of nexus and noted a strong case on limitation in the present situation. The matter was deemed to need reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority in light of these observations. Separate Judgment by Judges: The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority, as the Tribunal set aside the impugned order based on the findings regarding the address discrepancy on the invoice and the nexus between input services and manufacturing. The decision was pronounced in open court on 03.11.2023.
|
