9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is a manufacturer of excisable goods and having three offices at various places namely, Chandigarh, Mumbai and Bangalore. They have availed Cenvat credit on various services namely, service tax paid on lending of DLF office Chandigarh, maintenance charges Mumbai office, brokerage and commission paid to the agent for obtaining office building at Bombay, insurance, security charges of Chandigarh office, house keeping charges at Chandigarh, Medical and accident insurance of employees, maintenance / rent charges of Bangalore office, insurance of office at Chandigarh and Mumbai. 3. Revenue is of the view that as these services have been received at various offices, therefore they are required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o their manufacturing activity as the services have been availed by the respondents at their office premises. Therefore, Cenvat credit is not available as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC)]. She further submits that learned Commissioner (Appeals) without discussing the nexus of the impugned services with the manufacturing activity of the respondent, has allowed the Cenvat credit. Therefore, impugned order is cryptic order and it has to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give finding in detail. She further submits that in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, input service credit has been availed by the head office of the respondent, therefore they are required to be reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered as per Rule 2(M) of the Cenvat Credit Rule as Input Service Distributor. It is also submitted that as per Rule 7 of the said Rules, the only requirement is that when the assessee having more than one manufacturing units, the assessee may opt for registration as Input Service Distributor. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent is having only one manufacturing unit. Therefore as held by this Tribunal, in the case of Durferrit Asea Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Valco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2012 (286) ELT 54 (Tri-Del)] and CC, Vapi vs. DNH Spinners [2009 (244) ELT 65 (Tri-Ahmd)], the respondents are not required to be registered as Input Service Distributor. It is further submitted that as the respondent has shown the nexus o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is having more than one manufacturing units. Admittedly, in this case the respondent is having only one manufacturing unit. Therefore, relying on the decision of Durferrit Asea Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I hold that respondent is not required to be registered as Input Service Distributor under Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. For the nexus of the services impugned, I find that the respondent paid service tax on lending of DLF office Chandigarh, maintenance charges Mumbai office, brokerage and commission paid to the agent for obtaining office building at Bombay, insurance, plant and machinery, security charges of Chandigarh office, house keeping charges at Chandigarh, Medical and accident insurance of employees, maintenance / rent charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
