9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the Mumbai office by the input service provider is not vitiated by the nature and/or the contents of the invoices used by the manufacturing unit, it would be tantamount to rendering the ISD related provisions otiose - Special provisions governing the registration and conduct of input service distributors must prevail over general provisions - Special provisions prevail over the general provisions and should be given full effect to – Decided against the Assessee. - E/409-410/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2013 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. For the appellant: Mr. ARJ Nayak, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms Sabrina Cano, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against denial of CENVAT credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the Department that the service received at the end of the manufacturing unit was not input service or that it was not used, in or in relation to, the manufacture and clearance of excisable products. The learned counsel has also claimed that the appellant is an ISD but he is not able to say as to when the appellant obtained registration as ISD. In any case, the learned counsel has not claimed that the credit in question was taken on the strength of ISD s invoices/bills/challans. 2. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The specific statutory provisions requiring any office of a manufacturing unit or output service-providing unit to take ISD registration for the purpose of distributing CENVAT credit on any input se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e recipient of the credit distributed and (iv) the amount of credit distributed. 3. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the manufacturing unit of the company at Mangalore chose to take CENVAT credit on BOFS provided by Corporation Bank, on the strength of the invoices issued by the bank to the Mumbai office of the company. Again, it is not in dispute that the Mumbai office of the appellant-company, which was, effectually, the recipient of the service rendered by the bank, allowed the Mangalore unit to take CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the said service. This was not permissible inasmuch as the transactions involved distribution of CENVAT credit by the Mumbai office of the appellant-company to its Mangalore unit witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
