9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distributed to the appellant unit subject to observance of restriction imposed in rule 7(d) - demand is to be sustained only pertaining to the period 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012. The demand is to be sustained only pertaining to the period 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 - The demand prior to 01.04.2012 is set aside and for the period after 01.07.2012 it is required to be verified whether the restriction in rule 7(c) and (d) have been satisfied - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/53474/2014-EX[DB] - A/55105/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 13-7-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Present Shri Rupesh Kumar Shri Parvesh, Advocate for the appellant Present Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR for the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ataka in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2011(23) STR 337 (Kar.) He also drew our attention to the CBEC Circular No.178/4/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014 wherein it has been clarified that the distribution for the purpose of Rule 7(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules will be done pro rata on the basis of the turnonver during the relevant period of the concerned unit to the sum total of the turnover of all the units. 5. The Ld. DR countered the arguments and submitted that the case laws cited have been delivered in the context of Cenvat Credit Rules prior to its amendment on 01.07.2012. She further argued that the CBEC circular has been issued in the context of Rule 7(b) and can have application only after 01.07.2012. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be distributed pro rata on the basis of the turnover during the relevant period of the concerned unit to the sum total of the turnover of all the units to which the service relates during the same period. 10. For the period upto 31.03.2012, the only conditionality for distribution of credit by ISD was sub Rule a b of Rule 7. The dispute in the present case is with respect to Cenvat Credit distributed to the appellant in respect of services which were wholly used in the Vizag factory. The reference to Rule 7 (a) (b) reveals that there is nothing in the rules against the distribution of such credit to the appellant s unit upto 31.03.2012. This view has been supported in the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05-S.T.) to take a separate registration. 10. Therefore, these are the only two limitations, which are imposed in Rule 7 preventing the manufacturer from utilizing the CENVAT credit, otherwise, he is entitled to the said credit. Merely because the input service tax is paid at a particular unit and the benefit is sought to be availed at another unit, the same is not prohibited under law. It is in this context, the manufacturer is expected to register himself as a input service distributor and thereafter, he is entitled to distribution of credit of such input in the manner prescribed under law. Therefore, the order passed by the tribunal is legal and valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not call for any interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
