9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The facts of the case in brief is that the respondent availed cenvat credit of service tax of Rs. 3,06,603/- for the period April 2007 to November 2007 on the basis of documents which were in the name of their head office situated in Mumbai and during the relevant period their head office was not registered as input service distributor and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the Revenue submitted that in view of the fact that appellant had two factories, the head office should have registered itself as an input service distributor and therefore, availment of credit is wrong. He reiterated the submissions in the memorandum of appeal and submits that decisions are not applicable since receipt of goods are subject to factual verification and therefore, cenvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Further, it has also been submitted that receipt of goods is verifiable but not the services. In this connection it would be worthwhile to see the provisions to provisos of sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. According to the said proviso, if the invoices do not contain all the particulars but contains certain details specified therein, the Assistant Commissioner can allow the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio is covered by the decision of this Tribunal and I do not find anything wrong with the decision of the Commissioner in following the same and I also find the submission that why this decision is not applicable are not at all correct, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly reject the same.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
