Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 158 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - CENVAT credit in the name of other unit - job worker - appellants had not taken registration as Input Service Distributors (ISD) under Rule 4(A) of Service Tax Rule, 1994 - Held that: - I find that the appellants had kept the jurisdictional authority duly informed about the job work for them being done at their Unit-II. The procedure for registration as Input Service Distributer came into being on 16.06.2005, which is in the middle of the period involved in this case from June 2004 to February 2006. Admittedly, there was nexus between Unit-I and Unit-II. There is no allegation that credit was not admissible. It is merely that the procedure which came into being in June, 2005 was not followed - reliance placed in the decision of the case of Pricol Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2015 (1) TMI 350 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that in case of procedural irregularity, the substantive benefit should not be denied. The Cenvat Credit of ₹ 34528/- is held to be admissible to the appellants - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|