9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant has clearly claimed that they have only one unit and there was no possibility of taking the Cenvat Credit in different units when the vendor has raised the invoice in the name of head office, there are no reason as to why the submission was not taken up for consideration by the Adjudicating Authority. The Gujarat High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DASHION LTD [ 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that even in the absence of any ISD Challan in such cases, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. The CBIC Circular No.1063/2/2018-CX dated 16/02//2018 has accepted the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat. The confirmed demand under OIO set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e utilization within the factory is also not in dispute. Admittedly, all the original documents have been produced by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. Since the Appellant has clearly claimed that they have only one unit and there was no possibility of taking the Cenvat Credit in different units when the vendor has raised the invoice in the name of head office, we do not see any reason as to why the submission was not taken up for consideration by the Adjudicating Authority. 5. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V. Dashion Ltd. has held that even in the absence of any ISD Challan in such cases, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. The CBIC Circular No.1063/2/2018-CX dated 16/02//2018 has accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of input service distributor as provided in the statute. Thus, denial of CENVAT credit merely on the ground of non-registration/delay registration as ISD is bad in law and not sustainable. 19. In view of the above discussion and by following the decisions cited above, we hold that the credit availed by the Appellant cannot be denied in this case. Substantial benefit cannot be denied on the ground of procedural infractions. Since, credit is held to be admissible the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable and we set aside the same.[Emphasis supplied] 7. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the confirmed demand under OIO and allow the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
