9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have laid down the procedure under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Document which is not known to the law shall not entitle any relief to a claimant. Public interest always weighs heavier than the private interest. While exemptions are granted at public interest, certain safeguard measures prescribed by notification have to be fulfilled. If the appellant has led evidence about the claim in accordance with law and such a claim was to serve the purpose of manufacture or in relation to manufacture or for providing taxable output service the appellant shall only be entitled to the input credit - matters are remanded to the original authority for re-adjudication - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/2086/2009-SM(BR) and E/2499/2009-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Registration of Special Category of Persons) Rules, 2005 to claim the benefit adducing evidence and satisfying the authorities in respect of eligibility and admissibility of the claim. According to Revenue there may not be denial of input credit service if a service distributor is known to law in terms of Rule 2(m) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. But such service distributors are required to be registered so that appropriate credit can be passed on by them to the beneficiary subject to scrutiny by Revenue. In the present case there is no finding by the authority as to whether the head office is a real service distributor and the factory of the appellant in Madhya Pradesh is beneficiary. Giving go bye to the Rules of 2005, the authority decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue gets proper opportunity to know who shall be beneficiary to get the benefit of input service distributor. The appellant has not satisfied to this extent. Appellant s reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of DNH Spinners is on different premises. In that case on the reasoning was that there is no dispute about the input service received by the assessee for which relief was granted. That decision has not examined the fact whether the appellant is entitled to the relief meeting the test of admissibility of the claim. Therefore the Appellant cannot get benefit of that decision. 6. The appellant also relied on other two decisions of the Appellate Commissioner who dealt the assessee by order dated 23-2-2011. It is very strange ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification have to be fulfilled. If the appellant has led evidence about the claim in accordance with law and such a claim was to serve the purpose of manufacture or in relation to manufacture or for providing taxable output service the appellant shall only be entitled to the input credit. 8. With the aforesaid observation and depiction of law, both the matters are remanded to the original authority for re-adjudication granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order on all the aforesaid aspects of safeguard measures of Revenue. 9. At the end, ld. Consultant submits that the question of service distribution does not arise, when there is only one head office. There is nothing to dilate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
