Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1468 - AT - Central ExciseJob-work - Cenvat credit - credit attributable to services rendered by Unit-II was taken in the books of accounts of Unit-I - unit II is undertaking the job work activities for the Unit I and the finished goods manufactured in the Unit I is removed from the factory on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty - Held that:- since both the Unit I and unit II belonging to the appellant are interlinked, the services utilized by one unit can be taken by the other unit. The cenvat statute in Rule 7 has provided that the input service distributor may distribute the credit among its other manufacturing units. The restrictions contained in the said rule have no application to the facts of this case. The statute specifically provides for taking of cenvat credit upon fulfillment of the conditions that the input service has been received and utilized for the intended purpose and in absence of any specific findings that the credit has not been mis-utilized by the appellant, credit should be allowed to Unit I, even if, the input services have been provided to the Unit II. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 entitles a manufacturer to take cenvat credit of service tax paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of the final product. In the present case since the ultimate finished product manufactured in the factory of Unit I who removed the goods on payment of Central Excise Duty. The job worker unit II only manufactures the intermediate goods and both the units are belonging to one company, cenvat credit cannot be denied. Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules also entitles a manufacturer to take cenvat credit of service tax, even if, the amount has been paid by some other unit or the office of the manufacturer located elsewhere. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Greaves Cotton Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II & IV [2014 (8) TMI 654 - CESTAT CHENNAI] which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court reported in [2011 (2) TMI 1130 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Therefore, the appellant is eligible to take cenvat credit on the disputed services and, thus, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
|