2013 (1) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... service distributor registration - Held that:- It is not in dispute that BOFS covered by the invoices raised on the appellant's Head Office was actually used by the appellant in the manufacture and clearance of their final products. The tax-paid nature of BOFS is also not in dispute. The department has no case that any part of BOFS covered by any given invoice was diverted by the Head Office. Prim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Superintendent (AR). 2. The above CENVAT credit was denied to the appellant on Banking and Other Financial Services' (BOFS for short) on the ground that the invoices did not indicate registration number of the service provider, and on the further ground that these invoices were addressed to the Mumbai Head Office of the appellant, which was not a registered input service distributor. In the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any part of BOFS covered by any given invoice was diverted by the Head Office. Prima facie, the entire quantum of BOFS covered by each invoice in question was used by the appellant. On these facts, the substantive benefit of CENVAT credit is prima facie admissible to the appellant and the same cannot be denied on minor procedural grounds. In this view of the matter, there shall be waiver of pre-de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X