9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lure to justify the proportion allocated to the Tarapur unit. There was no such allegation leveled in the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority appears to have travelled beyond the notice in holding that the dues are liable to recovery. Also, reliance placed on the decision of the case of Castrol India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (9) TMI 709 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it has not been alleged in the show cause notice nor there is finding that the credit distributed against the documents is more than the amount of service tax paid and in any case, this can be verified only at the end of ISD. It is also not the case of the department that credit has been received by the assessee in respect of services/goods which are totally exempted. Under these circumstances, on this ground alone, probably the matter can be decided but the learned advocate is fair enough to argue the case on merits and also agree to reverse the credits which are patently inadmissible. The reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order does not stand the test of legality. For that reason, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals - decided in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate to deny the availment for not having been put to use in the manufacture of output. The appellant-assessee having reversed the credit for the period prior to 10 th September 2004, the adjudicating authority did not venture to record a finding on that. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the definition of input service provider covers headquarters and that the distribution of credit was well within the scope of rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as it stood prior to 1 st April 2012. Conceding that restrictions were incorporated in the rules with effect from that date, she submitted that distribution prior to that date was not fettered. It was contended that section 11AC could not be invoked without reference to it in the show cause notice and that, in the absence of allegation incorporating ingredients for invoking the provisions of section 11AC, imposition of penalty was also questionable. 4. Learned Authorized Representative vehemently contested the claims of the appellants by highlighting the definition of input service as to be used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of the finished product. It is his contention that the said input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice nor there is finding that the credit distributed against the documents is more than the amount of service tax paid and in any case, this can be verified only at the end of ISD. It is also not the case of the department that credit has been received by the assessee in respect of services/goods which are totally exempted. Under these circumstances, on this ground alone, probably the matter can be decided but the learned advocate is fair enough to argue the case on merits and also agree to reverse the credits which are patently inadmissible. Therefore, we proceed to consider the issue on merits also. 7. In Doshion Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri.-Ahmd)] , it has held that 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The registered office and Vatva office both are located in the same place and appellant has simply utilised the credit at Vatva instead of distributing it to various units. As submitted by the learned counsel, during the relevant period, there was no restriction for utilisation of such credit without allocating proporti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o bar on input service distributor to distribute the credit which pertains to one unit to another unit. 9. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I [2011 (271) ELT 58 (Kar.)] has held that 8. It is in this context, the definition of input service distributor makes it clear that a manufacturer or a producer of a final product or a provider of output service may have more than one unit and may be distributed in various parts of the country. It is in this background the definition of service distributor is defined as office of the manufacturer or producer of a final product or provider of output service which receives invoices issued under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 towards purchases of input services and issues invoice, bill or, as the case may be, challan for the purposes of distributing the credit of service tax paid on the said services to such manufacturer or producer or provider, as the case may be. Therefore, the law mandates that the manufacturer who wants to avail the benefit of this service tax if he has more than one unit he should also get registered himself as a service provider and then, he would be able ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
