9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company has incorporated the additional service as Input Service Distributor (ISD) w.e.f. 21.11.2007 in the registration, which they are holding since 2004. Therefore, in the present case, it cannot be said that the Head Office was not registered with the Service Tax authorities. I find that the Tribunal in the appellant s own case, for the subsequent period in the case of CCE Vapi Vs Samita Conductors Ltd - [2012 (11) TMI 432 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue - Revenue has not made out a case that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit which is within the restriction of the ISD registration and therefore, there is no reason to deny the CENVAT Credit - No reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 2012 (278) ELT 492 (Tri-Ahmd) (CCE Vs Samita Conductors Ltd). He further submits that the case laws relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative would not be applicable in the instant case. It is submitted that in the instant case, the Head Office was holding Central Excise registration under Business Auxiliary Service since April 2004. It is also submitted that after Board s circular No.97/8/2007-ST, dt.23.08.2007, their Head Office amended the registration certificate and incorporated the ISD in the registration certificate. He also submits that in this case, he relies upon the various decisions on the identical issue as under:- a) Doshion Ltd Vs CCE Ahmedabad 2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri-Ahmd) b) Demosha Chemicals Pvt. Vs CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the additional service as Input Service Distributor (ISD) w.e.f. 21.11.2007 in the registration, which they are holding since 2004. Therefore, in the present case, it cannot be said that the Head Office was not registered with the Service Tax authorities. I find that the Tribunal in the appellants own case, for the subsequent period in the case of CCE Vapi Vs Samita Conductors Ltd - 2012 (278) ELT 492 (Tri-Ahmd) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 3. I have considered the submissions. I find that the decision in the case of Jindal Photo Limited was rendered in exactly similar circumstances. In that case also the registration was not taken by the head office as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rules have to be got amended but certainly the submissions like this not called for. In view of the fact that the ratio is covered by the decision of this Tribunal and I do not find anything wrong with the decision of the Commissioner in following the same and I also find the submission that why this decision is not applicable are not at all correct, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly reject the same. 6. The case laws relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative are not applicable in the present case for the reason that in that case, the ISD was not registered with the authorities. 7. I also notice that on the identical issue, there are series of decisions where the Tribunal held that the credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
