2014 (2) TMI 1010

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... credit on inputs and input services received in Pondicherry itself and there is no dispute in the present proceedings in relation to such credit taken at Pondicherry in the present proceedings. 2. The applicant accumulated CENVAT credit in their Bangalore office, which was doing both trading as well as rendering services. In Bangalore they were receiving certain services which were used in manufacturing also. In March, 2010, their Bangalore office transferred an amount of Rs.4.12 crores to their factory at Pondicherry acting as an input service distributor as per Rule 2(m) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, by a single invoice claimed to be as per the provisions to Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute in the present appeal is in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . However, he concedes that this position was not explained to the department on the contrary there is a statement as recorded in para 35 of the adjudication order that the amount transferred included credit relating to trading activity also. The Commissioner thus proceeded on the premise that Rs.1.75 cores is to be reversed out of Rs.4.12 crores distributed to Pondicherry. Accordingly, that amount has been confirmed. 4. In respect of the second issue the learned counsel for the applicant concedes that the documents for transferring the credit did not have all the particulars as required under Rule 4A of the Service tax Rules as applicable to invoices issued by input service distributer. He submits that this is a curable defect. He submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... earned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that as per para 35 of the impugned order, it was admitted by the Director (Tax) Management that Out of 4.12 crores transferred to Pondicherry Rs.1.74 crores appears to be relatable to trading. At any rate there was no reversal of credit relating to trading either at Bangalore or Pondicherry. Therefore, the applicant should be directed to reverse this amount in full. 6. In respect of remaining credit, he submits that the documents based on which credit has been taken did not have details as necessary without which the Commissioner could not have made any verification. Further, he relies very strongly on the decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra). He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X