9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to storages and or sale of the goods manufactured by the appellant unit, therefore as per the definition of input service existed during the impugned period, the activities related to the business is also defined as input service therefore for this reason CENVAT credit can also not be denied. Denial also on the ground that appellant also carried out trading activity - Held that: - Cenvat credit proportionate to the percentage of trading turnover, as per the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority is recoverable from the appellant - However, no penalty to be charged on the said proportionate credit. Denial also on the ground that the in certain cases the invoice of the service providers do not bear the registration number - Held that: - there is no allegation that under the said invoice service tax was not discharged therefore merely because registration number of the service provider has not been mentioned, this alone cannot be reason for the denial of credit - Non mention of the registration is merely procedural lapse, for this reason substantial benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied. The appellant is entitle for the CENVAT credit except the CENVAT credit proport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Doshion Ltd Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad[2013(288)ELT 291] (ii) Demosha Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE ST, Daman[2014(34) STR 758] (b) He further submits that since the appellant had been operating only one manufacturing unit even had the ISD registration taken, Cenvat credit could have been distributed to one unit and consequently not obtaining ISD registration which merely procedural lapse has not resulted to any due extra benefit to the appellant. In this connection he placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Bloom Dekor Ltd Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad[2012(28) STR 182) (ii) CC E, Vapi Vs. DNH, Spinners [2009(16) STR 418] (c) As regard the reason for denial of the credit on the ground that since some of the services were used at the head office/branch office the same is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product therefore the same is not input service. In this regard, he submits that at the relevant time as per the definition of input services, services used in activities related to business was also one of the input service. (d) He submits that as regard some of the services received at the head office/branch office the same was u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Industries Vs. CCE, Meerut[2015(38)STR 852] (iv) Imagination Technologies Vs. CCE, Pune-III[2011(23)S.T.R. 661(Tri. Mumbai)] In view of the above submissions, he prayed that the Ld. Commissioner's order be set aside and appeal be allowed. 3. Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that appellant have various locations such as head office, branch office, storages terminal at Ahemedabad depot, Bhivandi, Belapur, therefore it was mandatory on the part of the appellant to obtained ISD registration and distribute services to its location and to avail the credit only attributed to the manufacturing unit. He further submits that appellant due to failure in obtaining ISD registration in their head office contravened the provision of Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1944. Therefore on the invoices which are in the name of head office the Cenvat credit is not available to the appellant unit. He further submits that the appellant have carried out certain trading activity in addition to the manufacturing of goods therefore cenvat credit attributed to the trading activity is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant of the Service Tax paid based on invoices/challans was in respect of the services provided by the Banks, Insurance Companies, transporters, Telecom Service, CHAs, Couriers, repairing maintenance services. The invoices were issued on the name of the registered/head office situated at Mumbai. It transpires from the records that there is no dispute as to the fact that the services were rendered in this case. The dispute as correctly pointed out by the ld. Counsel is only on the ground that the head office of the appellant having not being registered as input service distributor, the entire tax paid by service provider could not be availed as Cenvat credit by the appellant, as there were two units. In the entire records, I did not find any such allegation nor there is any findings to indicate that the appellant herein had availed more than the eligible Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid in both the units. The Cenvat credit availed by the appellant is exactly the amount which has been charged as Service Tax by the Service provider. I find strong force to the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel that the judgment/order of this bench in the case of Doshion Limited (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is applicable. In fact Commissioner proceeded to say that the appellants should have followed the procedure of issue of invoices by the head office as an input service distributor but observed that as far as the present appeal is concerned, the proceedings are limited by the ground taken in the show cause notice and upheld in the OIO which was that appellants had taken credit wrongly since invoice was not in their name but in the name of their head office. Because of this ground, the whole case becomes one of the invoice not being in the name of the factory. In view of the fact that the invoice was in the name of the head office and there was no dispute raised in the show cause notice as to the admissibility of input service credit to the factory on the ground that the input service was not relatable to the factory, the omission becomes a total curable defect and is a condonable one. Under these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the Commissioner to drop the demand cannot be found fault with. The Commissioner also has taken a view that merely because the appellants did not disclose to the department that they have availed credit on the basis of documents not prescribed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put 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 no dispute that input distributor was required to be registered. The dispute had arisen as to the effective date of registration, exercise of discretionary powers for allowing credit deficiencies in documents issued by the input service distributor etc. In the present case the dispute is totally different. The dispute is not as to whether the document issued by the distributor is a valid document or not. But the issue is whether the registered office of the appellant is required to be registered at all when they have only one factory and when the credit has been taken by the factory on the basis of invoices issued by service providers. There is also no indication or no allegation in the show cause notices or in the findings that appellant's factory did not receive the service. In the decisions cited by the learned counsel, a view was taken that credit cannot be denied and the invoice is in the name of registered office/head office provided the same is endorsed. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that there is no allegation that under the said invoice service tax was not discharged therefore merely because registration number of the service provider has not been mentioned, this alone cannot be reason for the denial of credit. Non mention of the registration is merely procedural lapse, for this reason substantial benefit of cenvat credit cannot be denied. In this case decision cited by the Ld. Counsel in case of Formika India(surpa) and Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd (supra) supports their case, in particular the issue of non mentioning of registration number of service provider in the invoice should not disentitle for availing cenvat credit has been held in the following decisions. U.G. Sugar Industries (supra) 2 . Subsequently, the appellants produced the registration number of the service provider and also submitted that inasmuch as the said service provider who was entrusted with the job, provided all such services they were not giving all the details of the services in the invoices. However, inasmuch as the said service provider has paid the Service Tax under the category of business auxiliary and such Service Tax have been received by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
