9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jarat High Court by stating that Further nonregistration of ISD is only a procedural irregularity for which substantial benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied when all the necessary records have been maintained by the respondent. There are no reason to sustain the impugned demand order and hence, the same is set aside, except to the extent of ₹ 4,65,724/- which is not being contested by the Appellant assessee - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No.76610 of 2017 with Excise Appeal No.76621 of 2017 - FINAL ORDER NO.75113-75114/2022 - Dated:- 23-2-2022 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJU, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Rajeev Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Kolkata Head Office since the same was not appearing in the Registration Certificate as ISD . Accordingly, the Central Excise duty demand of ₹ 6,23,02,212/-was confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata, alongwith equivalent penalty against which the assessee has preferred the instant appeal before us. 2.4 No interest was, however, charged in the aforesaid adjudication order against which the Department is in appeal. 3. Sri Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Advocate appeared for the assessee. Sri S.Mukhopadhyay Ld. Authorised Representative, appeared for the Department. 4. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the demand in the instant case is only for the reason that the Head Office in Kol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evied by the Commissioner should also be levied on the demanded duty amount. 6. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 7. We find that the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the Appellant assessee should be denied CENVAT credit for want of registration as ISD during the relevant period. In the Discussions and Findings portion of the impugned order (para 5 and para 6), no dispute has been raised by the Ld. Commissioner with regard to the nature of input service and the fact of payment of service tax thereon. 8. We find that the issue has already been settled by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in CCE vs. Dashion Ltd (supra) wherein affirming the view taken by the Tribunal s Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shall have to be answered in favour of the respondent and against the assessee. We further note that the Department in Circular no. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 (Para 2.3) has accepted the above decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court by stating that Further nonregistration of ISD is only a procedural irregularity for which substantial benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied when all the necessary records have been maintained by the respondent. 9. Since the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, we do not find any reason to sustain the impugned demand order and hence, the same is set aside, except to the extent of ₹ 4,65,724/- which is not being contested by the Appellant assessee. Penalty imposed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
