Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (6) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent company during period from March, 2011 to February, 2012 and against these invoices, the appellant company had made the payment to the parent company and the appellant company being the service recipient, has paid the service tax on the amount paid to the FSA, France under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 read with section 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the service tax Rules, 1994. In case of the assessee who have paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism of Section 66 A of Finance Act, 1994 as service recipient in terms of the Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of service tax Rules, 1994, the challan under which the service tax had been paid is also a valid document for taking CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 9 (1) (e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Since t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... company made the payment and in respect of these services received, the appellant company paid service tax as service recipient in terms of the provisions of section 66A of Finance Act , 1994, read with Rule 2 (10 (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules,1994. ,The total service tax payment is of ₹ 2,63,03,909/-. They took CENVAT Credit of this service tax paid in their CENVAT Credit account. In the course of audit of the records, it was found that the invoices of FSA, France, on the basis of which the CENVAT-Credit, in question, had been taken, were in the name of M/s. Faurecia Automotives Seating India, Bangalore, whereas service tax credit had been availed at Gurgaon Unit of M/s. Faurecia Automotives Seating India Limited. The department .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to February, 2012 period, and payment for these services had been made by the appellant ; that these services had been received in respect of the Gurgoan Unit only which was functioning at that time; that it is the Gurgaon Unit which had paid service tax as service recipient under Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the service tax Rules, 1994; that this fact if clear from the GAR-7 Challans, some of which are placed on records; that the parent company mentioned the Bangalore address in the invoice, as originally these services were meant for Bangalore Unit but since the Bangalore Unit had closed down and at that time it is only the Manesar Unit which was functioning, the services had been received at Manesar Unit; that when services, in question, in re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from both the sides and perused the records. 7. The appellant company is a subsidiary company of FSA, France and in terms of their agreement with the France based on parent company, they were to receive certain business support services. It is not disputed that there was a manufacturing unit of the appellant company in Bangalore and there is also a manufacturing unit of the appellant company in Gurgaon since February, 2009. However, according to the appellant company, Bangalore unit had stopped manufacturing operations in 2007 and since February, 2009 it is only the Gurgaon Unit which is in operation. There is also no dispute that the 10 invoices on the basis of which the CENVAT Credit of ₹ 2,63,03,909/- has been taken by the Appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id is also a valid document for taking CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 9 (1) (e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Since the, challans under which the service tax, in question, has been paid and on the basis of which CENVAT Credit has been taken mention the Gurgaon Unit as the assessee, in terms of Rule 9 (i) (e), the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to the appellant even though the invoices mention the address of Bangalore Unit of the Appellant Company. 8. In view of this we are of the prima facie view that the impugned order is not correct. The requirement of pre-deposit of cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty is therefore, waived for hearing of the appeal and the recovery is, thereof, stayed. The Stay application is allowed. - - Ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates