9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is admissible and the substantive right of the assessee with regard to the CENVAT credit should not be taken away on procedural infractions - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/23181/2014-SM - 20920/2017 - Dated:- 14-2-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, For the Appellant Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR, For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a holder of service tax registration for providing taxable service under c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly for the operations from Bangalore. He further submitted that the agreements with the distributors and business partners are entered into by the Head Office at Thane and the service provider raised invoices addressed to the Head Office. But the services covered in the impugned invoices have been received only for the Bangalore operation and accordingly, the credit was directly taken in Bangalore. He also submitted that the department has not made out any allegation nor made any attempt to ascertain whether such duplication of credit has taken place. He relied upon the following decisions wherein it has been consistently held that even though the credit was taken based on invoices raised on the Head Office but the credit is admissible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant. He also submitted that the demand of interest is also not sustainable as the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant clearly shows that the appellants have always maintained a sufficient credit balance in their account i.e., more than the disputed amount at all time and consequently, the question of demanding interest does not arise. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant had availed the CENVAT credit wrongly on the basis of input credit document addressed to their Head Office situated at Thane, Maharashtra and further the service provider is not eligible to take credit when the documents are addressed in the name of their Head Office having service tax registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
