9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 can only be made applicable against the manufacturer/service provider or the person who availed the allegedly inadmissible credit and show-cause notice can t be issued against the Input Service Distributor for recovery of CENVAT Credit. Board Circular dated 10.03.2014 re-affirmed the same position and clarified further that show-cause notice can t be issued against ISD under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The entire demand raised against the Input Service Distributor is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,904/- alongwith interest but was served with show-cause cum demand notice dated 28.10.2016 for refund of the entire amount with interest and penalties. Common Order-in-Original dated 18.01.2019 was passed confirming demand, proportionate interest, equal penalty, etc. by the Adjudicating Authority. Appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) yielded no fruitful result and the said order of rejection has been assailed in this appeal. Period of dispute is from financial year 2010- 11 to 2014-15, April, 2015 to June, 2017 and April, 2015 to March, 2016 in respect of distribution of credit to its manufacturing unit at Karnataka and at Chandipur. 3. During course of hearing of the appeals, learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Jitu Mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Appellant company, in which nearly 95% of the share is that of the Appellant and it works under the control and supervision of Appellant Company. He has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal passed in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III reported in 2009 (242) ELT 168 (Bom.), Pr. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV Vs. Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd. reported in 2022 (66) GSTL 264 (Cal.), Mclube Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Nashik reported in 2020 (37) GSTL 64 (Tri.-Mumbai), Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Heidelberg, Cement India Ltd. reported in 2017 (6) GSTL 473 (Tri.-Mumbai), BS & B Safety System India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in SKF India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I reported in 2016 STR 737 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad reported in 2015-TIOL-2510-CESTAT-MUM, no irregularity is said to have been committed in issuing show-cause notice to the input service distributors since in SKF India Ltd., it was clearly held that ISD and factory having located in one and same place with two different registrations, Rule 14 can be invoked against ISD and in Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd., it was held that show-cause notice issued to the manufacturing unit or to their Head Office will not really make any difference. He further submitted that on inadmissibility of credits no irregularity could be noticeable in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with a suggestion that it should have been served on the ISD and the opinion formed by the Tribunal on this issue was that since both ISD and manufacturing unit are situated in the same locality under the jurisdiction of the same Commissioner, sending notice to the manufacturing unit was not invalid. But, as could be noticed from the written submission made by the Appellant that the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in an appeal that was allowed by way of remand of the matter to the lower forum and, therefore, precedent value of the said order can be considered as lost. Further, placing reliance on the other judgments namely on Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd., cited supra is a mis-placed proposition for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
