9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt input service invoices were not in the name of their Vapi but in the name of Head Office, and the Head Office was not registered as an Input Service Distributor, the Cenvat Credit availed on such invoices even though the services were utilised in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods at their Vapi unit, had been denied. I find that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May 2006 to July 2006, they had availed Cenvat Credit on various input services. Since the input service invoices were in the name of their Head Office, at Mumbai, which was not registered as an Input Service distributor, a show cause notice was issued on 02nd April, 2011 for recovery of the credit availed with the proposal for penalty on the Appellant and its emplyee. On adjudication, the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Input Services, therefore, merely because of the Head Office was not registered as Input Service Distributor at the relevant time credit cannot be denied to them. In support, the Ld Advocate referred to the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Dashion Ltd 2016(41)STR.884 (Guj.) 5. Per contra, the Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to make application to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in terms of Rule 3 thereof. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 further required any provider of taxable service whose aggregate value of taxable service exceeds certain limit to make an application for registration within the time prescribed. However, there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would auto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
