9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant was not registered as ISD Distributor. This being a procedural irregularity, therefore, cannot be made the basis of denying CENVAT Credit on services received by the appellant. - Decided in favour of appellant - Excise Appeal No. 1015/11 & Service Tax Appeal No. ST/384/11 - Final Order No. FO/A/75993-94/2016 - Dated:- 6-9-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Hon ble Technical Member Shri S.P. Siddhanta, Consultant For the Appellant Sri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) For the Respondent ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant against same Order-in-Original No.ST/SHILLONG NO. 03/2011 dated 26th May, 2011 passed by Commr. of Central Excise, Shillong as adjudicating authority. Under this Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only one manufacturing unit in India: i) Bloom Dekor Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Centra Excise, Ahmedabad-2012 (28) S.T.R. 182 (Tri.-Ahmd.) ii) Parekh Plast (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Vapi-2012 (25) S.T.R. 46 (Tri.-Ahmd.) iii) Commr. of Customs Central Excise, Vapi Vs. DNH Spinners 2009 (16) S.T.R. 418 (Tri.-Ahmd.) iv) Durferrit Asea Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Guntur -2010 (258) E.L.T. 414 (Tri.-Bang.) v) Commr. of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Telco Ltd. 2006 (204) E.L.T. 83 (Tri.-Mumbai) 2.1 It was also the case of the appellant that all the service tax credit taking entries in CENVAT Credit account were submitted to the Department alongwith the refund claims filed with the Department unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservations are fortified by the case law of Bloom Dekor Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Centra Excise, Ahmedabad (supra) where it is also held that CENVAT Credit of services received in the factory is admissible even if document is in the name of Registered office. Following observations were made by the Bench in the above relied upon case: 4. After considering the submissions and records I find that the decisions relied upon by the learned SDR are not applicable to the facts of the case. In all these cases a view was taken that the input service distributor is required to be registered and the effective date of such registration was also required to be considered as held in the case of Philips Electronics (India) Ltd. In all those cases there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
