TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny other unit other than this EOU and in this unit also they do not have a sale/clearance to DTA. It is his submission that the reasons for accumulation of cenvat credit was because of the above two factors. - Held that: - the provisions of Rule 7 can be brought into play only if the appellant wishes to get registered himself as input service credit distributor. If the appellant is not inclined to do so and if he does not have any more than one manufacturing unit, then there is no compulsion for him to work under Rule 7 - Refund allowed - E/62/09 - 791/2010 - Dated:- 23-4-2010 - Appellant Rep by: Mr V Ravindran, Consultant Respondent Rep by: Mr M M Ravi Rajendran, JDR CORAM: M V Ravindran, Member(J) Per: M V Ravindran: This appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hy their refund claim should not be rejected for the aforementioned reasons leading to violation of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 9 ibid; and also for violation of Rule 7 of Service Tax Credit Rules. The appellant herein contested the show cause notice and submitted that the Revenue was incorrect as the Claim in question was in accordance with their earlier claim made and sanctioned pertaining to period August, 2005 to March, 2006. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dt.9/6/2008 rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant except for an amount of Rs.4094/-. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), after granting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for the refund of claim of the Cenvat Credit which got accumulated, on the bills which were raised in the name of the head office, despite the fact that the appellant's head office was not registered as a service tax distributor and had not distributed service tax credit as pert the laid down procedures in this regard. It is seen from the records and more specifically from para 10 of the impugned order, that it is not disputed that the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid on the input services and id. Commissioner (Appeals) has held categorically that the documents were correct and there could not be any suspicion on such documents. Despite these findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Commissioner, Central Excise, Cuddapah has categorically informed to the office of the Jt. CDR that "in this connection, it is to submit that this office has no information /evidence regarding the existence of other units of M/s. Durferrit Asia Private Ltd., in the jurisdiction of Cuddapah Division". 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion of the letter that the presumption of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the input credit can be availed at various units seems to be unsubstantiated and only is based on assumption. 7. Accordingly, in view of the findings, I find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any (Operative portion of this order pronounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
