9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us service providers viz. Banks, Insurance Companies, transporters, MTNL and others for telephone, CHAs, Couriers, repairing & maintenance services, etc. issue in the name of their Registered / Head Office situated at Mumbai; their Head Office had not issued any invoice or bill in the name of the appellant and also their head office was not registered as 'Input Service Distributor' category. The department entertained a view that since the invoices / bills are not in the name of the appellant they are not valid documents to avail Cenvat Credit under sub rule (1) of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 read with Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, therefore, the credit availed by them on the basis of those bills / documents are not admissible. Consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 627 (Tri. - Ahmd.) iii. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Vapi Vs. DNH Spinners - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 418 (Tri. - Ahmd.) iv. Bloom Dicor Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 2012 (28) S.T.R. 182 (Tri. - Ahmd.) 5. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand would submit that the appellant could not have availed Cenvat Credit of the entire amount of service tax paid at one unit is objectionable and should have been distributed by their head office after taking registration of the premises as input service distributor. 6. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 7. On perusal of the records, it transpires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been charged as service tax by the service provider. I find strong force to the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel that the judgment / order of this bench in the case of Doshion Limited (supra) (para 5) and Modern Petrofils (supra) (para 4) are directly on the point wherein the bench has held as under: Doshion Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad -2013 (288) E.L.T. 291 (Tri. -Ahmd.): 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The registered office and Vatva office both are located in the same place and appellant has simply utilised the credit at Vatva instead of distributing it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner has rightly followed the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DNH Spinners. Even though the appellants have multiple divisions, in the absence of any dispute about the receipt of the services in question by the factory to whom credit has been passed on, the ratio of the cited decision is applicable. In fact Commissioner proceeded to say that the appellants should have followed the procedure of issue of invoices by the head office as an input service distributor but observed that as far as the present appeal is concerned, the proceedings are limited by the ground taken in the show cause notice and upheld in the OIO which was that appellants had taken credit wrongly since invoice was not in their name but in the name of their he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
