9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , appellant had replied to the query of the respondent department concerning its registration as ISD in which case, as an input service distributor, it had the discretion to distribute the inputs but the Commissioner (Appeals) had not believed its reply by observing that appellant was using the rented premises for sale of goods and marketing of products being manufactured in two units of Appellant and such issue of ISD registration was not agitated in the show cause notice. What is more important is that the Commissioner had accepted the Appellant s contention that appellant was using the rented premises for marketing purposes which is in conformity to Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules that clearly covers advertisement or sales promotion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with section 11 AC(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act with reduced penalty option by 25% u/s 11 AC(1)(c) in case payment of penalty was made within 30 days and reversal of ₹ 14,55,273/- of Cenvat Credit was also adjusted against total demand as well as appropriated. Appellant s unsuccessful attempt before the Commissioner (Appeals) has brought the dispute to this Forum. 3. In the memo of appeal and during the course of hearing the appeal, Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr Makrand Joshi submitted that at Delhi and Bombay, office premises were taken on rent by appellant for marketing of product such as display, co-ordination with customers, new development of customers and for extending warranty coverage as well as trouble shoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e place of removal of final products and being a company registered as ISD, appellant had availed of the credits in its factory at Plot no. 20, Satpur, Nasik alone for which credit was rightly denied by the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submitted that Managing Director of appellant company had accepted the lapse and promised to pay back irregular Cenvat Credit of ₹ 14,55,273/- as well as paid the same vide challan dated 23-10-2010 and acknowledged such mistake in writing in his letter dated 22-10-2012. Further in citing Hon ble Supreme Court s decision reported in 2004 (165) ELT 136 (S.C), he argued that facts of non-admissibility of credit were admitted by the appellant which needs no further proof for which interference for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the Commissioner (Appeals) had not believed its reply by observing that appellant was using the rented premises for sale of goods and marketing of products being manufactured in two units of Appellant and such issue of ISD registration was not agitated in the show cause notice. What is more important is that the Commissioner had accepted the Appellant s contention that appellant was using the rented premises for marketing purposes which is in conformity to Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules that clearly covers advertisement or sales promotion within the definition of input services. Therefore, appellant is eligible to avail the credits and its specific non-reflection in ER-1, could be due to non-availability of such specific narration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
