9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;
Conclusion - A the distribution of cenvat credit to the respondent has not been disputed by the Revenue at the end of the Input Service Distributor, in that circumstances, it cannot be disputed at the end of the availment of cenvat credit by the respondent.
There are no infirmity with the impugned orders - appeal of Revenue dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 '12 9,14,63,792 18,31,474 9,15,671 9,42,10,937 2 10/Commr/ST/Bol/1 4 dated 13.02.2014 April '13 October '13 to 10,39,26,394 20,78,373 10,51,852 10,70,56,619 3 72/Commr/ST/Bol/1 4 dated 22.09.2014 November to May '14 '13 10,96,01,541 21,92,011 10,96,041 11,28,89,593 4 26/Commr/DSP/15, dated 28.05.2015 June '14 February '15 to 16,16,61,382 32,33,229 16,16,583 16,65,11,194 5 01/Commr/CE/DGP/ 16-17, dated 01.04.2016 March '15 to December '15 16,83,61,176 17,55,382 8,77,648 17,09,94,206 Total 63,50,14,285 1,10,90,4 69 55,57,795 65,16,62,549 3.7.2 Second impugned order SCN No. & Date Period Cenvat duty Ed. Cess S&H Ed. Cess Total 26/Commr/ST/Bo l/08 dated 18.06.2008 September 2004 to December, 2007 5,39,44,302 11,39,853 44,151 5,51,28,306 51/Commr/ST/Bo l/08 dated 30.12.2008 January 2004 to September, 2007 2,48,59,301 4,97,269 2,68,128 2,56,24,698 31/Commr/ST/Bo l/09 dated 09.09.2009 October 2008 to June, 2009 4,46,47,552 8,92,951 4,46,476 4,59,86,979 35/Commr/Bol/1 0 dated 27.07.2010 July 2009 to May, 2010 6,57,22,909 17,31,940 2,44,705 6,76,99,554 34/Commr/Bol/1 1 dated 04.05.2011 June 2010 to March, 2011 4,21,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, written submissions, documents and clarifications submitted by the respondent as stated above, the Commissioner thereafter passed the impugned orders. 2.11 Being aggrieved with the above two review orders, the Revenue has filed the instant appeals. 3. The ld.Sr.Counsel for the respondents, submits that the present issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Tata Steel Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2024 (10) TMI 50-CESTAT-Kolkata. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the short issue involved in the matter is whether the cenvat credit availed by the respondent, which has been distributed by the input service distributor as an ISD and the availment of cenvat credit by the respondent, which has been disputed at the end of ISD, where the cenvat credit is available to the respondent or not ? 7. The identical issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in the case of Tata Steel Limited (supra), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : "8. We fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of service tax paid thereon, or (b) credit of service tax attributable to service used in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed." Therefore, only two limitations are put for the distribution of credit by an input service distributor. Firstly, it cannot exceed the amount of service tax paid and secondly, the credit of service tax attributable to service used shall not be distributed in a unit exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services." 6. There is no allegation against the appellant that the provisions of Rule 7 has been violated. Further, I find that issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (17) S.T.R. 515 (Tri.-Bang.)] wherein this Tribunal relied on paras 5 and 8 which is reproduced hereunder : 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the Rule 3 merely says that a manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service shall be allowed to take credit of any input services received by the manufacturer of such final product or provider of output services. The availability of cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en, he would be able to collect all the input service tax paid in all its units and accumulate them at its head office and distribute the said credit to its various units. At the time of distribution, the manner of distribution is provided in Rule 7 which reads as under : - "Rule 7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor. - The input service distributor may distribute the CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service, subject to the following conditions, namely :- (a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon, or (b) credit of service tax attributable to service used in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed." Therefore, only two limitations are put for the distribution of credit by an input service distributor. Firstly, it cannot exceed the amount of service tax paid and secondly, the credit of service tax attributable to service used shall not be distributed in a unit exclusively engaged in the manufacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturing 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 in the unit where the product is manufactured, is therefore not the mandate of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 6. Under these circumstances, we confirm the view taken by the Tribunal. We do not see any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. In view of the above judgment even though the service is not used in the appellant factory, but received and used in different factory of the same company, credit cannot be denied. Following the ratio of the above decision and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the appellant is legally entitled for the Cenvat credit. The impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed." 12. In view of the above discussions, as it has not been questioned that ISD has taken inadmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
