9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears, pinions, valve assembly, central locking and security systems and vehicle tracking systems falling under Chapter Heading 84 of the CETA, 1985 appeared to have contravened the provisions of Rule 3 and 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 r/w Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, inasmuch as they have availed ineligible service tax credit distributed by the Input Service Distributor (ISD) M/s. Pricol Ltd. Coimbatore to the tune of Rs.2,23,57,000/- during the period from May 2008 to March 2010 and utilized the same for payment of central excise duty on the goods cleared in the subsequent months. Hence Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant proposing to recover ineligible CENVAT credit by deliberately suppressing the facts with int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for past period also which was dropped by the Appellate Commissioner and the dept appeal against the same was decided in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 924/2012 dated 12.09.2012. With respect to non-receipt of services by the appellant he submitted that, as per Rule 7 CCR as on the disputed period, to avail ISD credit there was no mandate that the credit availing entity should have received the services. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of ECOF industries (P) Ltd. reported in 2012 (277) ELT 317. With respect to the allegation on splitting and utilising service tax credit as Education cess credit the appellant submits that there was a bar o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tributor to the appellant not containing the particulars prescribed under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 such as name, address, registration number of the ISD; serial number and date of invoice etc. this Tribunal in its earlier decisions in Final Order Nos. 924/2012 dated 12.09.2012; 40101/2023 dated 02.03.2023 and 41232- 41233/2018 dated 16.03.2018 pertaining to the appellant have held that, credit cannot be disallowed when the appellant is providing the said details in the annexure to the invoice which is verifiable. Judicial discipline requires that we follow the same. 6. As regards the issue of the appellant splitting the credit as service tax, education cess, secondary higher education cess and utilising the same accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of credit by input service distributor by imposing two conditions therein, which are as follows : "a. Credit distributed under the invoice of ISD does not exceed the amount of Service tax paid. b. Credit of Service exclusively used for exempted goods or exempt service is not distributed." 5. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to distribute the Cenvat credit on the input services on its manufacturing unit or other units providing the output services. The view taken in the order in appeal that the distribution of credit is for the advertisement of the product, which is not at all manufactured at Malur Unit, therefore, cannot be accepted. The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that the assessee is entitled to take credit only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
