9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside Order-in-Appeal dated 31/3/2014 with consequential relief, if any. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 75895/2014 - Final Order No. FO/75689/2016 - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Hon ble Technical Member For the Appellant : Sri Rohit Surana, C.A. Smt. S. Agarwal , C.A. For the Respondent : Sri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.04/Kol-V/2014 dated-31/03/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeal-I), Kolkata. 2. Shri Rohit Surana (C.A.) and Smt. S. Agarwal (C.A.) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Ld. C.A. Shri Rohit Surana argued that adjudicating authority under Order-in-Original dated 10/08/2010 onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit is admissible. 3. Shri A.Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that on merits input service credit was not admissible to the appellant under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Regarding non-registration of Head office as ISD distributor, it was argued that appellant cannot take CENVAT credit without registration of head office as ISD. Ld. A.R. thus strongly defended the order passed by the first appellate authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Credit of ₹ 9,42,995/- was taken by the appellant on the strength of invoices issued by their head office without being registered as ISD (Input Service Distributor). This fact is not disputed that appellant is having only one factory where the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty. Question No. 1 therefore shall have to be answered in favour of the respondent and against the assessee. 4.1 In view of the above settled Proposition of law , non-registration of Head office as ISD is only a procedural lapse and cannot be made the basis of denying the CENVAT Credit when it is not disputed that services availed were utilized in the only factory of the appellant. 5. So far as non-admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the services availed by the appellant is concerned, it is observed that adjudicating authority has only denied CENVAT Credit of ₹ 9,42,995/- against the appellant on the grounds that appellant s h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
