9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsferred by Delhi office to their Najibabad unit and as such there is double utilization of the same - In the absence of any allegation of non-receipt and non-utilization of the services by the assessee, the denial of credit on the sole ground that the invoices were in the address of Delhi office cannot be appreciated and upheld. As regards non registration of Delhi office as ISD, we note that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal laying down that non-registration as ISD will not result in denial of credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos. E/724-726/2010-EX[DB] - A/72110-72112/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 24-8-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi office is mentioned. As such a view was entertained that the said documents are not proper eligible documents for the purposed of availment of credit. The appellant, in addition to the said invoices also produced the invoices issued by their Delhi office vide which the entire service tax was transferred to the appellant s unit located at Dasna. It may be mentioned here that though during the relevant period the appellant s Delhi office was not registered as ISD but the same was subsequently registered as ISD w.e.f. 26.05.2006. 4. In the above background, proceedings were initiated against the appellant proposing denial of credit alleging that the invoices which were originally in the name of Delhi office were not eligible document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emdabad reported at 2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri-Ahmd.), (iii) Precision Wires India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, VAPI reported at 2013 (31) STR 62 (Tri.-Ahmd), (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, VAPI vs. Jindal Photo Ltd. reported at 2009 (14) STR 812 (Tri-Ahmd), (v) Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T., Kanpur reported at 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 132 (Tri-All.), (vi) Bhusan Power Steel Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Kolkata-IV reported at 2017 (52) STR 305 (Tri-Kolkata), (vii) Hinduja Global Solution Ltd. vs. C.C.E., S.T. Cus., Bangalore-II reported at 2016 (42) STR 932 (Tri- Bangalore) and (viii) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Chandresh C. Shah reported at 2014 (36) STR 972 (Guj). A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garh reported at 2014 (34) STR 751 (Tri-Del), (iv) Unicure India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cus., C. Excise S.T., Noida reported at 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 418 (Tri-All.), (v) Valco Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh reported at 2012 (286) ELT 54 (Tri-Del.), (vi) Adbur Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi reported at 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 334 (Tri-Del.) and (vii) ACE Tyres Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cus., C. Excise S.T. Hyderabad-IV reported at 2017 (348) ELT 466 (Tri-Hyd.). 6. In view of the foregoing, we find no justification for upholding the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside and all the three appeals are allowed, with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in Court) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
