2008 (12) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (T) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the assessee is entitled to avail the credit on the basis of ISD invoices issued by their Shared Service Centre, Kolkata (PEIL, SSC, Kolkata for short) which was not registered as Input Service Distr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d credit taken. > No attachments to the ISD invoices excepting the Invoice No. 42 dt. 28-2-2006 were provided. Even the attachments to Invoice No. 42 dt. 28-2-2006 which were provided on 15-2-2007 could not be co-related to the said ISD invoice. 2. Heard the both sides. Shri Prakash Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellants had applied for centralize .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tions of the Commissioner. 4. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by learned advocate. Credit was taken by the appellant almost after more than two months by applying for centralized registration and this shows that Revenue had enough time to take a decision. Thereafter, the application was wrongly rejected and restored based on the clarification issued by the Board. As regards o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X