9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AHMEDABAD ] and PRECISION WIRES INDIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VAPI [ 2014 (3) TMI 630 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ], held that since there is no allegation that the services had not suffered service tax or that the services were not received at the Kattur plant, the only issue was that the invoice was raised in the name of the Head Office, which cannot be the sole ground to deny credit. The appellant has also pointed out that while the disputed invoices are for the period August 2010 to August 2011, their HQ had applied for an ISD registration on 07.01.2010 and the registration certificate was also issued and has also been accepted at para 4.2 of the Order in Original. The Adjudicating Authority had dropped the demand on the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal No. 54/2014 dated 20.8.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during audit of the appellant s accounts by the internal audit officers of the Trichy Central Excise Commissionerate in February 2012, it was noticed that the appellant had taken CENVAT credit of service tax of Rs.1,46,546/- based on nine invoices raised during the period August 2010 to August 2011, in the name of their Head Office located at Chennai and that the payment for the services had been made by their Head Office. It was found that the invoices did not contain the name and address of the appellant s unit at Kattur. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Compensation Policy for the workers involved in the manufacturing process in the Kattur plant. He further stated that; a. There is no allegation in the SCN that the services were not received by the Kattur plant. The allegation in the SCN was that the invoices based on which the credit was availed were in the name of Head office and that the head office is not registered as ISD. b. The Head Office had applied for a registration as an ISD on 07.01.2010 and the registration certificate was also issued. OIO has accepted the same. c. The Appellant relies upon the following decisions: Rajender Kumar Associates (2021) 45 GSTL 184 Kemwell Biopharma Pvt Ltd (2017) 47 STR 70 Anand Nishikawa co ltd ( 2014) 34 STR 751 Hindustan Zinc Ltd (2013) 36 Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shortcomings in the invoice under Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 after satisfaction of receipt of service in the Kattur Unit. He hence prayed that the order may be upheld. 4. I have carefully gone through the appeal and have heard the rival parties. The dispute pertains to the appellant availing CENVAT Credit based on invoices addressed to the units Head Office. I find that the Adjudicating Authority vide Order in Original dated 30.09.2013 after relying on the decisions of Tribunals in the case of CCE Vs. Jindal Photo Ltd (2009) 14 STR 812 and Precision Wires India Ltd Vs. CCE (2013) 31 STR 62, held that since there is no allegation that the services had not suffered service tax or that the services were not received at the Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) could have examined the issue himself and registered his own satisfaction or lack of it in the matter. Rejecting legal credits which are equivalent to cash inflows and are the life blood of any business, merely on technical ground would be a very harsh measure. Further I also accept the claim of the appellant that the SCN was time-barred. There is nothing to show that the credits were not reflected in the monthly returns filed by the assessee or that there was a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty. 6. A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had examined the activities of the Head Office as an ISD and noted as under in Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd vs Raigad, [2015-TIOL-2510-CESTAT-MUM]. 5. . . . Input service dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts or branch offices. Thus, the distinction between the location of ISD and that of a manufacturing unit itself is immaterial. Credit is finally availed and utilised by the manufacturing unit. . . (emphasis added) I respectfully concur with the views expressed above and hold that substantial benefit should not be denied on purely technical grounds especially when there is no allegation with regard to the payment of service tax on the services, receipt of the services and utilization of services by the appellant, merely on the ground that invoices were in the name of head office. 7. For the reasons discussed, I am of the opinion that the appeal merits to be accepted. I hence set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
