9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 2016. Therefore, from March 2016 to June 2016, there were more than one factories being operated under the same Company. In this fact, if it is found that if the common service was used by more than one factory then appellant shall be entitled for the Cenvat credit only on pro-rata basis attributed to Dahej factory - However, this aspect has not been examined by the lower authorities. It is also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) in its order refrained from giving findings as regard admissibility of input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR. There are no option except to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order, after considering all the issues - appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of Doshion Limited vs. CCE - 2016 (41_ STR 884 (Guj.), whereby the decision of this Tribunal reported at 2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri.) was upheld. As regards the credit availed in respect of input service for godown rent, he submits that since the said godown is used for storage and sale of the goods manufactured in the factory, the service is directly related to the factory, therefore, credit is admissible. He placed reliance on the on the following judgments:- (a) Vako Seals Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2015 (40) STR 594 (Tri. Mumbai) (b) Valco Industries Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2012 (28) STR 457 (Tri. Del.) 3. As regards the issue that invoices for the input service were addressed to Mumbai/ Taleja office, he su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad office, then the credit can be availed only by the input service distribution. In the present case, head office of the appellant was not registered as input service distributor therefore, credit taken by the appellant is incorrect. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. We find that the credit was denied on the ground that head office of the appellant is not registered as input service distributor. The invoices issued in respect of services in question were addressed to other head office or their Taloja godown. We find that for majority of the period involved, the appellant was operating with one factory at Dahej. Therefore, he submits that for such period whatever service received at godown or at head office, if the same are cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
