9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances, the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit and accordingly, there is no requirement of reversal of CENVAT Credit by the appellant. The impugned order deserves no merit and thus, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Senior Advocate Assisted by Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Debapriya Sue, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER ORDER: [ PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL ] Both the appeals are having a common issue and therefore, both are disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel products and have their manufacturing units at Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand and in Kalinga Nagar in the State of Odisha. During the material period, the Kalinga Nagar unit of the appellant, which is a green field project, received intellectual property services (drawing and designs) for setting up its new plant. The regional head office of the appellant-company is at Kolkata and has been registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) under the provisions of the Finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir submissions. 8. We find that the short issue involved in the matter is whether the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on intellectual property service can be denied, when the Input Service Distributor (ISD) i.e., TSL, Kolkata has availed CENVAT Credit and distributed the credit to the appellant as an ISD and the availment of CENVAT Credit at the end of TSL, Kolkata has not been disputed by the Revenue, or not. 9. We find that the said issue was dealt with by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nalco Water India Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has held as under: - 10. Further, we find that all the services in question, on which the Head Office has availed cenvat credit and distributed to the appellants in proportionate in terms of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of Balkrishna Industries Limited (supra), wherein this Tribunal has held as under : 4. From the facts, it emerges that appellant is having its office in Mumbai and as per definition of input services distributor as per Rule 2(m) which is reproduced herein as under : (m) input service distributor means an office of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the manufacturer of goods or provider of output services as a whole and not restricted to any particular unit of the manufacturer/service provider. 8. The combined reading of the Rule 7 and the clarificatory Circular dated 23-8-2007 clearly shows that there are only two restrictions regarding the distribution of the credit. The first restriction is that the credit should not exceed the amount of Service Tax paid. The second restriction is that the credit should not be attributable to services used in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services. There are no other restrictions under the rules. The restrictions sought to be applied by the Department in this case in limiting the distribution of the Service Tax credit made in respect of the Malur Unit on the ground that the services were used in respect of the Cuttack Unit finds no mention in the relevant rules. As such, restricting the distribution of Service Tax credit in a manner as has been done by the impugned order of the lower appellate authority (original authority had approved of such distribution) cannot be upheld. In case the Department wants to place such restriction as is sought to be placed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. As the services has been availed at the head office and same is a part of the appellant itself as a manufacturer. Therefore, I hold that appellant has availed the input service credit correctly. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. 11. Further, in the case of Nestle India Limited (supra), this Tribunal again has examined the issue and has observed as under : 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the fact is not under dispute that though input service on which the credit was disputed was not used in the factory of the appellant but it is related to the product Nescafe and Maggie Noodles which are manufactured in the appellant company s different factory. As regards the provision for distribution of the credit, there is no condition of one-to-one correlation between the credit distributed and the quantum of service received and used by a particular factory. Though the service is related to the product which is manufactured in the appellant s company in other factories. But all the factories belonging to one company and in the absence of any provision of one-to-one correlati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
