9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also mentioned. Tribunal in the case of Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. [ 2016 (6) TMI 229 - CESTAT BANGALORE ] in an identical issue has held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied with regard to Service Tax paid on the invoice issued to the head office rather than the factory which has actually utilized the services so long as the input services are received and utilized by the appellant, this at best can only be termed as procedural violation which is not fatal to the right of the appellant - Thus, CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground that the invoices issued in the name of the head office. CENVAT credit - denial on account of nexus of raw material with finished goods - HELD THAT:- The credit has been availed on the material used fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt which are not eligible items as per CENVAT Credit Rules. Therefore, a SCN dated 20.06.2017 was issued demanding CENVAT credit of ₹ 6,43,298/- for the period from 1st March, 2015 to 31st March, 2017 along with interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. After following the due process the original authority vide Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2018 confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit of ₹ 6,43,298/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adding of the steam pipes/boller valves for the purpose of avoiding steams loss. Further, the Commissioner has rejected the CENVAT credit on the ground that the appellants have not produced any evidence on record to show the actual usage and to counter this argument Learned Counsel submitted that in the Order-in-Original, the original authority has admitted the usage of the said items for the purpose of repair and maintenance but denied on the ground that the repair and maintenance was done when the process of manufacture of goods was not in operation. He further submitted that CENVAT credit on the material used for cladding of the equipment/pipes is admissible in view of the following decisions: * CCE Vs India Glycols Ltd. - 2007 (210) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shwaraj Sugars Ltd. Vs CCE - 2019 92) TMI 1556 * Ashok Iron Works Ltd. Vs CCE - 2019 (2) TMI 666 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rejected the CENVAT credit of ₹ 4,15,642/- only on the ground that the invoices are in the name of head office whereas the CENVAT credit pertains to their Unit at Ramdurg. Further, I find from the invoices that it is mentioned in the invoices name of the appellant and the reference of the Unit pertaining to which the said credit on input service pertains. Though, the address of the head office is mentioned in the invoice but the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
