Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1733 - CESTAT ALLAHABADDistribution of CENVAT Credit - GTA Service - Business Auxiliary Service - denial of credit on the ground that the mines were independent units having their own identity, mines were having separate set up and financial transactions and did not have any bearing of the appellant, though mines had the same PAN Number and the mines were not in the precincts of factory premises. HELD THAT:- After amalgamation w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and as per the agreements entered into between the appellant and the respective State Government for enjoying the rights of mining, the mines located at various places which were named by the appellants as Lohardaga mine, Bagru mine and Samri mine were supplying Ores to the appellants - In the absence of any evidence that the said mines supplied ores to any other entity, the said mines were capitive mines of appellant. Hon’be Supreme Court in the case of VIKRAM CEMENT VERSUS CCE, INDORE [2006 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] had ruled that if the mines are the captive mines then the Cenvat credit on capital goods used in such mines will be available to the appellant. We find from the records submitted before us that the above stated mines were captive mines for the appellants also due to reason that revenue has stated on record that the records being maintained at various mines were having the same PAN Number. Therefore, the Cenvat credit of service tax on services availed at mines was admissible to the appellant. Further, we note that the appellant were availing Cenvat credit received through invoices issued by Lohardaga mines which has registration as ‘Input Service Distributor’ and therefore, we find that said Cenvat credit was admissible to them. Some discrepancies found with the invoices were only procedural infirmities and we did not come across any evidence on record to establish that the services covered by the said invoices were not availed by the appellant. We further note that Input Service Distributor is covered by Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and there were no allegation that the procedure required to be followed as per said Rule 7 was not followed by the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|