9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. It is further observed that in respect to photocopy of invoices, the same is not relevant for allowing the credit to the appellant, as the Head Office has distributed the credit to the appellant unit. In this case if there is any objection to be raised, it should be by the Jurisdiction Officer of the Head Office which is not the case here - the appellant have taken credit in respect of the distributed input credit by the Head Office on the basis of a statement. Since, there is a large number of services and invoices involved, the same was in co-operated the statement, the statement contains all the details as required under Rule 4A, therefore, on the basis of such statement credit is admissible. There is no dispute about the payment of Cenvat Credit on the input service received and credit thereof was distributed by the Head Office. It has not been established by the department that the credit which distributed on the invoices was distributed to more than one manufacturing unit of the appellant, as the same was neither a charge in the show cause notice nor evident in the impugned order - it is held that ISD registration is a procedural requirement, therefore, even if there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons) Rules, 2005. The appellant obtained ISD registration on 18.08.2005, however, the credit was distributed by the Head Office to the appellant before obtaining the registration. During audit, it was observed that the appellant had availed inadmissible credit, accordingly, a show cause notice dated 20.08.2009 was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why inadmissible Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,41,32,634 should not be denied and recovered with interest and penalty be imposed on the appellant vide Order-In-Original dated 07.02.2012 the adjudicating authority denied the entire credit and order recovery thereof under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rule read with proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act. In the said order it was held as under:- a. Photocopy of invoices of various service providers issued in favour of the appellant s Head Office, which in turn has merely prepared statement cannot be treated as a valid document for the purpose of taking credit in terms of Rule 9 of the CCR. b. The appellant s Head Office was not registered as an ISD under the Registration Rules and in view thereof the Head Office cannot distribute credit under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of taking and distributing the credit which shows that the ISD had not transferred the credit in excess of the credit availed. The record also shows that ISD has not transferred the disputed credit to any other units. The Head Office of the appellant has filed periodic service tax returns with the jurisdictional service tax office, disclosing all the details of the credit availed distributed to various units which shows that the appellant has not distributed excess credit. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- Commr., Cus. And C.EX V. Sri Ram Piston Rings,-2019 (369)ELT 631 (All.) Jai Balaji Industries Ltd (Unit IV) V. Commr. Of C.Ex., Bolpur, -2022 (58) GSTL 361 (Tri.-Kolkata) 3.2 He further submits that Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant for obtaining registration post 16.06.2005, that the registration is a procedural requirement and substantial benefit like Cenvat credit cannot be denied on procedural lapse. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:- Commissioner of Central Excise V Dashion Ltd-2016 (41) STR 884 (Guj.) Commissioner of c.E., ST Cus. Bengaluru v. Hinduja Global Solu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Head Office of the appellant has transferred the credit to the appellant unit. We also found that the appellant have taken credit in respect of the distributed input credit by the Head Office on the basis of a statement. Since, there is a large number of services and invoices involved, the same was in co-operated the statement, the statement contains all the details as required under Rule 4A, therefore, on the basis of such statement credit is admissible. We further find that the said statement is also document which contains all the details as required under Rule 4A at the same it is valid document under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We further find that issuance of documents under Rule 4A is a procedural requirement and substantial benefit like Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on the basis of procedural infraction. As regard, the issue that the appellant Head Office was not registered as an ISD, therefore, the distribution of the credit is not admissible as Cenvat Credit to the appellant, we find that there is no dispute about the payment of Cenvat Credit on the input service received and credit thereof was distributed by the Head Office. It has not been established by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
