9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for the department to verify all the input service invoices on the basis of which the credit has been accumulated by ISD. It is seen that the proceedings initiated against M/s. Pricol Limited, Plant-I, Coimbatore, on the issue of retransfer of ISD credit to M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD was finalized by this Hon ble Tribunal in M/S. PRICOL LTD. (PLANT I) , M/S. PRICOL LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE COMMISSIONERATE [ 2019 (2) TMI 25 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that it is evident that M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I has only returned/reversed the exact quantum of Credit that was transferred to it in the first place by the M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD. Such return/reversal has not enlarged the quantum of Credit that has been availed nor has there been any financial injury caused to the exchequer. This is then only a revenue neutral situation. Appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r ISD registrant on a monthly basis and the credit accumulated during the month was transferred to the manufacturing units once at the end of the month, the amount of credit transferred alone was mentioned in the invoice with a list of input services in the Annexure attached to the said ISD invoice. All the details of input service invoice-wise as mentioned in Rule 4A could not be captured in ISD invoice itself, though they had mentioned in the ISD register which contained all the requisite details of input service invoices and a copy of the said register with the copy of the input service invoices were furnished to the adjudicating authority for verification. Despite having verified the same, the Commissioner has merely concluded that the ISD invoice did not contain the requisite details and denied the credit. Further, he contended that in their own case, this Hon'ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. 924/2012 dated 12.09.2012 and Final Order No. 41232-41233/2018 dated 16.03.2018 had decided the above issue in their favour. 2.2 On the issue of non-receipt of services in the appellant unit, learned Advocate has drawn our attention to the provision of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation proceeding was initiated against Plant I and ISD Registrant in this regard on the ground that Plant I cannot transfer such credit back to ISD and ISD cannot distribute such credit again. The said proceeding was finally decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide their Final Order No. 40188-40189/2019 dated 29.01.2019 in favour of the assessee. 3. Learned AR Shri R. Rajaraman has reiterated the reasoning of the adjudicating authority. 4.1 Heard both sides. All the three issues raised in this appeal are no more res integra. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. 924/2012 dated 12.09.2012 and also vide Final Order No. 41232-41233/2018 dated 16.03.2018 have already decided that input service credit when distributed by the ISD, cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR, 2004, when it was possible for the department to verify all the input service invoices on the basis of which the credit has been accumulated by ISD. The findings of the Tribunal in the above cited two decisions are extracted as under:- "2. The main allegation of the Revenue in this appeal is that as per Rule 4 A (2) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, such taking of credit cannot be faulted upon. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants." 4.2 Regarding manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor, the learned Advocate has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd., (supra), wherein it was held as under:- "10. Therefore, there are only two limitations, which are imposed in Rule 7 preventing the manufacturer from utilizing the cenvat credit, otherwise, he is entitled to the said credit. Merely because the input service tax is paid at a particular unit and the benefit is sought to be availed at another unit, the same is not prohibited under law. It is in this context, the manufacturer is expected to register himself as an input service distributor and thereafter, he is entitled to distribution of credit of such input in the manner prescribed under law. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is legal and valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not call for any interference and therefore it is dismissed." 4.3 It is seen that the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 18/2012 CE (NT) dated 17.03.3012 wherein a restriction for proportionate distribution was introduced. At the cost of repetition, it has to be said that during the disputed period, there was no restriction in the quantum of Credit that could be distributed. When the amount of Rs. 3,32,14,672/- was distributed by M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD, to M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I, they had reversed the Credit as they were already having excess unutilized Credit. This reversal is carried out by issuing an invoice by M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I to M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD dated 01.02.2009. 8.2 True, there may not be any specific provision to facilitate such "return" of non-required credit which has been transferred in the first place by the Input Service Distributor, but it has to be kept in mind that there would be situations when an Input Service Distributor may transfer Credit amounts inadvertently or in excess of what was intended, to a constituent unit. In such situations, the only recourse would be by way of "return/reversal" of such Credit back to the Input Service Distributor, which in turn can be facilitated only by the recipient unit reversing the unintended Credit and issuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
