9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. There is no dispute on the fact that appellant's registered office at Mumbai obtained centralized registration for discharge of service tax on various services including GTA services and discharged service tax. The jurisdictional Service Tax Commissionerate at Mumbai not raised any dispute on the payment of service tax nor any demand issued against them. The registered office is registered as ISD is also not under dispute. The Tribunal in the case of Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur (2012 (12) TMI 612 - CESTAT NEW DELHI), has discussed the identical issue and set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. - there is not even iota of dispute raised by the Mumbai Commissionerate on the centralized registration obtain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Input Credit Distributor. He submits that out of the three issues, they are contesting only one issue as stated in 5.2.5.1 of OIO relating to disallowance of cenvat credit of ₹ 15,09,987/- pertaining to GTA outward transport service for the period 1.1.2006 to 1.11.2006 distributed by the ISD. Their registered office obtained centralised registration which was duly registered by the jurisdictional Service Tax Commissionerate at Mumbai on various services including GTA service. They paid service tax on GTA in respect of all the units and distributed the credit relating to appellant unit as ISD. The revenue not disputed on the payment of service tax on GTA or the documents issued by ISD on which credit has been availed by the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that their registered office is not authorized to pay service tax on GTA after taking centralized registration at Mumbai. On perusal of the findings, at para 5.51, 5.52 and 5.53, the adjudicating authority has discussed only on the provisions of centralized registration and held that service tax paid by the corporate office is not eligible as cenvat credit availed by the appellant. There is no dispute on the fact that appellant's registered office at Mumbai obtained centralized registration for discharge of service tax on various services including GTA services and discharged service tax. The jurisdictional Service Tax Commissionerate at Mumbai not raised any dispute on the payment of service tax nor any demand issued against them. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the technical and procedural grounds. As such, in the absence of any dispute that the appellant was otherwise entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services, so received by them, the denial of the same on the ground that the credit was availed on the basis of invoices raised by their head office is neither justifiable nor warranted. In the above case, the Tribunal held that the availment of cenvat credit by the respondent was allowed where even the centralized registration was rejected by the department. Whereas in the present case there is not even iota of dispute raised by the Mumbai Commissionerate on the centralized registration obtained by the registered office of the appellant. That being the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
