9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT] to consider the plea of the appellant that the sale was on FOR destination basis - Matter on remand. Invoices addressed to Corporate Office - HELD THAT:- The registration as ISD is not mandatory, which is evident from the C.B.E.C. Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 wherein the Board has accepted the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DASHION LTD [ 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that non-registration of ISD is only a procedural irregularity, for which reason the benefit of CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to the assessee - Credit cannot be denied on this ground and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri. S.S. Muralidharan, Chief Financial Officer for the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the denial of CENVAT Credit in respect of the following : (i) Credit availed on GTA Services; (ii) Invoices addressed to Corporate Office; (iii) Credit availed on Hotel stay; and (iv) Credit availed on Auction Services; 2.1 Shri. S.S. Muralidharan, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) appearing for the appellant, submitted at the outset that with regard to the denial of credit on GTA Services, the authorities below have not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted duty paid for the scrap, he contends that the Revenue is not justified in denying CENVAT Credit. 2.5 Summarizing his arguments, he submitted that the denial of CENVAT Credit is incorrect, as it was revenue neutral with absolutely no loss to the Revenue. 3.1 Per contra, Ms. T. Usha Devi, Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, seriously rebutting the contentions of the appellant, submitted as under : (i) GTA Services: Primarily, the Adjudicating Authority did not have the benefit of the C.B.I.C. instructions (supra) which was issued three months after the passing of the adjudication order. In any case, the appellant has not established its ownership till the delivery or the risks attached to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) This Bench has been consistently remanding the matter back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority in the light of the subsequent Board Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX (supra) and also the binding decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise S.T. Vs. M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.) and Commr. of Cus. C.Ex., Aurangabad Vs. M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.), to consider the plea of the appellant that the sale was on FOR destination basis. (ii) Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority shall afford opportunities to the appellant on this, ascertain actual facts and then give a finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been held that non-registration of ISD is only a procedural irregularity, for which reason the benefit of CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to the assessee. The denial and the impugned order to this extent is set aside and this ground is allowed. III. CENVAT Credit on Hotel Stay : (i) The assessee has very clearly explained that accommodation in hotels was arranged only for technicians, which fact was also not disputed by the Adjudicating Authority. Further, as explained by the Consultant for the appellant, such technicians were needed only in case of requirement and that they were provided accommodation only for that limited purpose. This, according to him, is directly connected in relation to the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .04.2011, which has thereafter been further clarified vide Minutes of Tariff Conference of Central Excise held on 28th and 29th October, 2015 circulated vide F. No. 96/85/2015-CX.I dated 07.12.2015 to the effect that the said service was an eligible input service. The above issue has also been considered in the following decisions and the courts have ruled in favour of the taxpayer : a. Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Surat-I 2016 (335) E.L.T. 660 (Tri. Ahmd.); b. Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Udaipur - Excise Appeal No. 53208 of 2015 ors vide Final Order Nos. 56683-56685/2017 dated 28.08.2017 CESTAT New Delhi; c. National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. S.T., Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
