9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Ravi Raghavan, Adv. and Shri D. Sen, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri D. Halder, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary: The present appeal is filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Original No.57/Commr./CE/Kol.II/Adjn./2008-09 dt.01.12.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is having manufacturing units at Howrah, Goa, Sikanderabad, Jammu, Pondichery and Rishra. The Head Office of the appellant is situated at 129, Park Street, Kolkata 700017. The appellant also gets its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCEx., Vs. Dashion Ltd.: 2016 (41) STR 884 (Guj.). For better appreciation, the relevant Paragraphs are reproduced below : 4. It is undisputed that the Rules of 2004 provide for a scheme for distribution of credit by input service distributor. Term input service distributor has been defined in in Rule 2(m) of the Rules of 2004 as to mean an office of the manufacturer or producer of final products or provider of output service, which receives invoices issued under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 towards purchases of input services and issues invoice, bill or, as the case may be, challan for the purposes of distributing the credit of service tax paid on the said ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004. In fact, the Tribunal has seen entire situation as a Revenue neutral, since as pointed out by the assessee, it had availed only 20% of the credit for payment of service tax and the balance was paid in cash. 7. The second objection of the Revenue as noted was with respect of non-registration of the unit as input service distributor. It is true that the Government had framed Rules of 2005 for registration of input service distributors, who would have to make application to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in terms of Rule 3 thereof. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 further required any provider of taxable service whose aggregate value of taxable service exceeds certain limit to make an application for registration wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by reason of wilful misstatement, suppression of fact or in contravention of the provisions of the Rules, evaded payment of central excise duty. He was not even sure whether this was a case of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of provisions of the Rules. 5. We also find that the CBEC vide its Circular No.1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 has accepted the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCEx., Vs. Dashion Ltd. (supra). The relevant paras are reproduced below : 2.1 Department has accepted the judgments where the Hon ble High Courts dismissed the Department s appeal inter alia holding that substantial benefit cannot be denied because of procedural irregularity. 2.2 In the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalties. 2.4 Therefore, the points of law examined were that the assessee had utilized credit from one unit for the purpose of duty liability of its other unit without pro rata distribution by the input service distributor and further the assessee had not registered itself under the Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons), Rules, 2005. 2.5 Hon ble High Court dismissed the department s appeal holding that such view was not sustainable as there was not previous restriction of this nature under Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further non-registration of ISD is only a procedural irregularity for which substantial benefit of CENVAT Credit cannot be denied when all the necessary records have been main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
