9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of credit on ISD which was distributed before obtaining registration by the Head Office, he submits that even if the credit of service tax paid by Head Office is distributed before obtaining registration, the same cannot be denied as has been held in the various judgments which are cited below: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Dashion Ltd. 2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.) (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Smita Conductors Ltd. 2012 (278) E.L.T. 492 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (iii) Bhansali Engg. Ploymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bhopal 2016 (42) STR 86 (Tri.-Del.) On the issue of valid documents i.e. invoice for ISD. He submits that the allocation chart on which the credit was taken by the head office containing all the information which are required to be contained in the ISD invoice, therefore the said document is valid for availing the Cenvat credit. In this regard he placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. 2012 (281) E.L.T. 90 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore Vs. Tikmani Steel Company Ltd. 2005 (192) E.L.T. 413 (Tri.-Bang.). (iii) Vodafone Cellular Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The second objection of the Revenue as noted was with respect of non-registration of the unit as input service distributor. It is true that the Government had framed Rules of 2005 for registration of input service distributors, who would have 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 automatically and without any additional reasons disentitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted. It was in this background that the Tribunal viewed the requirement as curable. Particularly when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Bhansali Engg Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhopal held that- "After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Govind Krishna Dixit, Departmental Representative for the respondent/Department, we find that credit of Rs. 59,53,367/-, availed by the appellant, on the basis of the invoices issued by their Head Office registered as Input Service Distributor stands denied on three grounds. First, the invoices were issued when the Head Office was not registered as Input Service Distributor, secondly on the ground that the credit has been availed on the basis of TR-6 challan and thirdly, on the ground that there are no invoices produced by the appellant, in some of the cases. As regards the first objection of the Revenue, we find that it stands held by the Tribunal in a number of decisions, that the distribution of credit by the Head Office without taking the registration, cannot be adopted as a ground for denial of the credit. Reliance in this case is made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Doshion Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2013 (288) E.L.T. 291 (Tribunal-Ahmd.)". From the above judgments it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers as well as the details of the services provided and service tax paid, which could be verified by the department. In our view when certain input services have been received by a manufacturer under the invoices of the service providers issued in the name of the head office, the head office had taken cenvat credit and thereafter passed on the same to its manufacturing units, the cenvat credit to a manufacturing unit cannot be denied even if the same has been passed on by letters and not the document bearing the name 'invoices' or 'challans' provided and letters or documents issued by the head office contain all the details which are required to be mentioned in the invoices/challans issued by the input service distributor. When the Appellant as service recipient had discharged the service tax liability in respect of the services received, under Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, they would be eligible for the credit on the basis of the challans under which the service tax had been paid on the service received if the services received are covered by the definition of "input service". (ii) In the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Bangalore Vs. Tikmani Steel Co. Ltd., held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice provided is also mentioned by the appellant in the demand letter. As regards the service tax payable, we are of the view that once the value is known as well as the rate of tax, the actual amount of service tax payable becomes quite obvious. The demand letters complied with the substantive provisions of Rule 4A and therefore, may be considered as invoices. Formal invoices were not issued by the appellant because service receivers were not ready to enter into a contract with the appellant even though they were receiving service continuously from the appellant. Therefore, we hold that service tax is payable by the appellant on the basis of the demand letters". As regard the Cenvat Credit on Rent-a-Cab service, the vehicle is used for transportation of employee for the purpose of factories activity. Therefore Rent-a-Cab service falls within the ambit of definition of input service. This issue is also covered by the following judgment. (iii) In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. held that- "5. Having considered the rival contentions, we hold that the appellant have rightly availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 30,16,215/- being an amount paid towards Goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
