TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, AMC Charges, etc. - Therefore, impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/3905-3908/2010-EX(DB) - - - Dated:- 6-7-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And B Ravichandran, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Hemant Bajaj, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER Per:Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders denying availment of Cenvat Credit by them. 2. As issue involved in all the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by a common order. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Ball Bearing and having three units at Jaipur, Manesar and Newai. They are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the services in question. It is not in dispute that services in question are not input services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Therefore, he submits that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat Credit merely having no registration as Input Service Distributor does not effect the entitlement of Cenvat Credit to them. To support his contention he relied on the decision in the case of Demosha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Daman-2014 (34) STR 758 (Tri), in the case of Doshion Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad-2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri) in the case of Greaves Cotton Ltd. Vs. CCE Chennai-2015 (17) STR 395 (Tri). Therefore, he prayed that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat Credit and impugned orders are to be set aside. 5. On the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... micals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein the facts are as under: The facts from records transpires that the appellant had availed the Service Tax credit for the period from September, 2006 to July, 2011 of an amount of ₹ 40,83,617/- on the basis of documents i.e. Invoices/chaiians, raised by various service providers viz. Banks, Insurance Companies, transporters, MTNL and others for telephone, CHAs, Couriers, repairing maintenance services, etc. issued in the name of their Registered/Head Office situated at Mumbai; their Head Office had not issued any invoice or bill in the name of the appellant and also their head office was not registered as Input Service Distributor category. The department entertained a view that since the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only on the ground that the head office of the appeiiant having not being registered as input service distributor, the entire tax paid by service provider could not be availed as Cenvat credit by the appellant, as there were two units. In the entire records, I did not find any such allegation nor there is any findings to indicate that the appellant herein had availed more than the eligible Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid in both the units. The Cenvat credit availed by the appellant is exactly the amount which has been charged as Service Tax by the Service provider. I find strong force to the contentions raised by the Id. Counsel that the judgment/order of this bench in the case of Doshlon Limited (para 5) and Modern Petrofils (para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be ignored and the demand confirmed has to be set-aside on this ground. In the result, demand for Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,07,07,142/- with interest and penalty equal to the same imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 are set-aside. 9. We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant wherein the issue was that whether non registration as input service distributor can be fatal for denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant or not. The question has been answered by the Tribunal in the case laws relied upon by the Tribunal namely Demosha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, (Supra) and Doshion Ltd. (Supra) that appellant cannot be denied Cenvat Credit availed by them in the absence of registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
