9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Rule 7 does not impose any restriction. In the case of Doshion Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [2012 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] the Tribunal observed that there being no restriction for utilization of Cenvat Credit of input service without allocating proportionately to various units during the relevant period and the omission to take registration as input service distributor can at least be considered as procedural irregularity. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/478/2011 - FO/76078/2017 - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate and Sh. Harsh Shukla, CA for the Appellant Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon; (b) credit of service tax attributable to service used in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed; (c) credit of service tax attributable to service used wholly in a unit shall be distributed only to that unit. 4. The appellant availed various input service credits such as transportation of finished excisable goods, mostly to Indian Railways Commission for sale of finished goods, Air-travel, Car-hire, Audit fees, Group Medical Insurance etc. According to the Revenue the Input Service Distributor cannot pass on the enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her units providing the output services. The view taken in the order in appeal that the distribution of credit is for the advertisement of the product, which is not at all manufactured at Malur Unit, therefore, cannot be accepted. The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that the assessee is entitled to take credit only in the unit where the product is manufactured is therefore not the mandate of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 6. In the case of Doshion Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [2013 (288) E.L.T. 291 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] the Tribunal observed that there being no restriction for utilization of Cenvat Credit of input service without allocating proportionately to various units during the relevant period a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any legal requirement to avail credit based on the services received during the relevant time and in the light of the decision cited by the learned counsel, the procedural irregularity has to be ignored and the demand confirmed has to be set-aside on this ground. In the result, demand for Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,07,07,142/- with interest and penalty equal to the same imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 are set-aside. 7. The ld. Counsel cited various decisions on these issues in the compilation of case laws. There is no need to discuss all the decisions as the issues are covered by the above decisions. 8. In view of the above discussions and the case laws, the impugned orders are set-aside. The appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
