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 147 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT credit - bill did not contain the registration number of service provider - Rule 4A(2) of Service Tax Rules - Held that: - When it is not disputed that the duty has been paid and input services has been availed by the respondents, the fact that the invoices or the bills [did not contain full particulars cannot be considered as a ground for denial of credit. Further, the show cause notice dated 22-03-2013 is issued for the period 2009 to 2011, by invoking extended period. The Commissioner(Appeals) is seen to have imposed penalty of 50% of the amount involved. In Moser Baer India Ltd vs CCE, Noida, [2015 (1) TMI 1093 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it was observed by the Tribunal that the basic requisite under Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, is that the Head Office receives the invoices towards purchase of input services and pays the service tax. That credit on input services is not dependent upon actual receipt of the services in the factory unlike the credit of the duty paid on inputs which is dependant upon the actual receipts of inputs/capital goods within the factory. Tribunal in a number of cases has held that when documents are in the name of Head Office, credit can be availed in the factory belonging to the same manufacturer. Appeal dismissed - decided against Department.
|