Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed / head office situated at Mumbai. It transpires from the records that there is no dispute as to the fact that the services were rendered in this case. There is no allegation of non-receipt of input service or the allegation of service not relatable to the factory and also in view of the fact that invoice was in the name of head office of the same factory and not in the name of someone else, the decision of the Commissioner that extended period is not invocable also has to be upheld. Since I have taken a view that appellants are eligible for the credit and suppression of facts and extended period are not invocable, the question of penalty does not arise. Accordingly the penalty imposed is also set aside - Following decision of LARSEN & .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... proposing to disallow / demand the credit availed by them along with interest, imposition of penalty was also proposed. After following due process of law, adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.40,83,617/- under rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest. The adjudicating authority also imposed equal penalty under rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after following due process of law rejected the appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that the entire finding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the denial of the Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid for the services rendered and billed to the head office of the appellant. 8. Undisputed facts are appellant is having two units. The invoices which are raised for the services rendered were in the name of the head office and their head office was not registered as input service distributor. 9. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the Cenvat Credit which has been availed for the appellant of the service tax paid based on invoices/challans was in respect of the services provided by the Banks, Insurance Companies, transporters, Telecom Service, CHAs, Couriers, repairing maintenance services. The invoices were issued on the name of the registered / head office situated at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , there was no restriction for utilisation of such credit without allocating proportionately to various units. The omission to take registration as an Input Service Distributor can at best be considered as procedural irregularity and in view of the decisions cited, has to be considered sympathetically. Further, it is also noticed that appellant has not got any extra benefit by doing this. In fact from the statement of Shri Chandresh C. Shah, as explained that above Cenvat credit available to them, 20% of service tax payable only was paid and balance was paid in cash. In fact, proper distribution would have enabled them to utilize full credit. It would show that the exercise is totally Revenue neutral and no loss has been caused to the Reven .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... being in the name of the factory. In view of the fact that the invoice was in the name of the head office and there was no dispute raised in the show cause notice as to the admissibility of input service credit to the factory on the ground that the input service was not relatable to the factory, the omission becomes a total curable defect and is a condonable one. Under these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the Commissioner to drop the demand cannot be found fault with. The Commissioner also has taken a view that merely because the appellants did not disclose to the department that they have availed credit on the basis of documents not prescribed under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it can be said that there was suppressio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates