2016 (12) TMI 1065

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r head office nor Pithampur ICD was registered during the period when the construction service was received and bills received - Held that: - the issue stands decided in the case of Doshion Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2012 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that registration with the department is not a pre-requisite for claiming the credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n on 17.10.08. On 25.10.08 they took Cenvat Credit at their Pithampur ICD against the bills for construction activity for setting up the ICD and raised by the service provider addressed to the Mumbai office. The Revenue was of the view that since neither their head office nor Pithampur ICD was registered during the period when the construction service was received and bills received, they are not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s should have taken registration as input service distributor and they only passed on the credit to ICD Pithampur. We have considered the arguments on both the sides. We do not consider that this to be a case of distribution of input service credit because the entire credit available against invoice applicable for activity done in respect of ICD, Pithampur is taken at ICD, Pithampur and they coul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X