9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is issued in the name of head office and endorsed to the appellant's unit. He submits that the appellants availed credit on the basis of invoice endorsed by Head office during the period April 2005 to September 2005 and the Head Office was not registered as Input Service Distributor under the CENVAT Credit Rules. It is his submission that the Respondents are not eligible to avail the CENVAT Credit on the basis of endorsed invoices of the Head Office which is not registered. He relied upon the following decisions:- a) Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Vs CCE Mangalore 2013 (30) STR 475 (Tri-Bang.) b) Market Creators Ltd Vs CCE Vadodara 2014 (36) STR 386 (Tri-Ahmd) 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturer of excisable goods or provider of taxable service. It receives tax paid invoices/bills of input services procured (on which Cenvat credits can be taken) and distributes such credits to its units providing taxable services or manufacturing excisable goods. The distribution of credit is subject to the conditions that, - (a) the credit distributed against an eligible document shall not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon, and (b) credit of service tax attributable to services used in a unit either exclusively manufacturing exempted goods or exclusively providing exempted services shall not be distributed. An input service distributor is required (under Section 69 of the Act, read with Notification No. 26/2005-S.T.) to take a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004. According to the said proviso, if the invoices do not contain all the particulars but contains certain details specified therein, the Assistant Commissioner can allow the credit on the basis of such defective documents, if the goods or services covered by such documents, have been received and accounted for in the books of accounts of the receiver. The submissions made by the appellant in this case is contrary to the provisions of law which require the Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner to verify whether input services have been received or not. This amounts to a submission that while formulating the Rules, the Government did not consider the practicability or otherwise of verification of receipt of input services. It is the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
