9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cked up just to deny credit. Certificate of registration dated 24.01.2011 - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the same that the addresses of business premises of the ISD and that of two manufacturing units to which credit on input services was distributed or intended to be distributed is clearly reflected. The Revenue, on the other hand, is not disputing the validity of this certificate of registration. Admittedly, transactions in the present case relate to the period prior to 01.09.2014 and therefore, the restriction which is applicable prospectively, cannot be applied retrospectively. In the case of Hon ble High Court THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. PRICOL LTD. [ 2021 (2) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has categorically held, following the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DASHION LTD [ 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , that there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons, disentitle an input service distributor from availing credit unless and until such reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned ISD Registration on 24.01.2011 and availed CENVAT Credit on services received between April 2009 and December 2011 and distributed to the manufacturing units at Pimpri, Pune and Puducherry. 2.1 A Show Cause Notice dated 17.05.2012 covering the period from May 2011 to December 2011 was issued apparently after due verification of related documents of the appellant. It is the case of the Revenue that: - (i) The appellant had availed input service credit of Rs.88,27,490/- on the basis of invoices issued by the Head Office at Bengaluru as Input Service Distributor (ISD) and that the ISD had obtained necessary registration only in May 2011. (ii) That the nature of registration was for a single premises and the taxable service was mentioned as management consultants . (iii) The invoices issued by the ISD for credit in May 2011 did not contain the particulars like name, address and registration number of the person providing the services and the serial number and date of invoice, bill or, as the case may be, challan issued by the service provider were also not available. (iv) The CENVAT Credit distributed by the ISD was without excluding the credit attributable to the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or business consultancy services (BCS) or business support services (BSS) and then only issued invoices for distribution of input Service Tax to its manufacturing units at Pune and Puducherry. The services provided were towards logistics and inventory management, financial management, production processes, quality control, etc., in their factory, which are very much covered under Rule 2(l) ibid. The list of invoices / challans based on which CENVAT Credit was taken by the ISD was also furnished. The authorities having jurisdiction over the ISD have not objected to taking CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on input services and hence, the authorities having jurisdiction over the manufacturing unit receiving the eligible credit distributed by the ISD cannot question the availment of credit so distributed. The authorities did not question the similar credit availed by the other manufacturing unit of M/s. 3M Electro Communication India Pvt. Ltd. at Pune. The ISD had taken total CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,39,62,761/- and had distributed an amount of Rs.94,84,506/- to the appellant-manufacturing unit at Puducherry and the balance amount of Rs.44,78,255/- was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue to be decided by us is: whether the adjudicating authority is correct in denying the CENVAT Credit and thereby ordering recovery of the same? 10.1 We find from the order of the adjudicating authority, which is impugned herein, that the denial of credit and the demand thereof was confirmed mainly on the following grounds: The appellant distributed the credit before obtaining the registration and in this context, the judgement of Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.)] is not applicable since the same relates to the refund. The nature of registration is for single premises for which a copy of the ISD registration could have been furnished instead of filing a copy of the generated certificate. Invoices issued by M/s. 3M Electro Communication India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein, did not contain the name, address and registration number of the service provider. Credit was distributed without excluding the credit attributable to their trading units which were exempted services. 10.2 At the outset, we find that it is a little strange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of C.Ex., S.T. Cus., Bengaluru v. M/s. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. [2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 417 (Kar.)] and later by various judicial fora. 12. In view of the above, therefore we do not approve the finding of the learned authority for denying credit on the ground that the credit taken was pertaining to the period prior to registration. 13.1 Learned Advocate invited our attention to paragraph 19 of the reply to show cause notice wherein details of ISD invoices issued by the Bangalore unit for availing credit by the appellant is reflected. He would refer to Annexure A to the reply to the Show Cause Notice, which is placed at page 57 of the appeal memorandum, and also to pages 58 to 67, wherein copy of the invoices have been placed, including copy of debit notes. 13.2 We find that the invoices placed on record clearly reflect the service provider challans and corresponding invoices issued by ISD for distribution of credit. Hence, we are of the view that merely because the above invoices do not have the details of person who provided the service, the same is not a valid ground to deny the benefit of credit. 14. For the above reasons, we do not approve the denial of cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
