9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recipient on the Goods Transport Agency Services against the input credit distributed by their registered office as ISD. Four show cause notices were issued proposing to deny a total credit of Rs. 10,21,98,632 for the period 2006-08. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order dt. 2.2.2009 out of the total credit of Rs. 10,21,98,632/-, disallowed credit of Rs. 24,65,925/- and appropriated an amount of Rs. 9,55,938/- towards the demand and interest of Rs. 11,470/- already paid by the appellants and also demanded interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 15 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2.Heard both sides. 3.The learned advocate for the appellant submits that appellant is a manufacturing unit and availed input credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducts Ltd. 2009 (237) ELT 270 (P&H) - APG Food Products Vs CCE 2013 (297) ELT 210 (Tri.-Del.) 4.On the other hand, Ld. A.R for the Revenue reiterated the OIO. He submits that jurisdictional Commissioner has the power to examine the admissibility of credit paid by their Registered office at Mumbai. He relied the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai - 2011 (220 STR 502 (Tri.-Chennai). 5.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The limited issue in this case relates to denial of cenvat credit availed by the appellant as a recipient of GTA services discharged by their registered office and distributed to the appellant unit. As rightly contended by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has denied the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejecting their request for inclusion of GTA services in the Head Office. The period involved is 18-1-2006 to 25-5-2006, i.e. prior to rejection of the said centralized registration in respect of GTA. 6. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is to be held that final rejection of centralized registration vide letter dated 26-5-2006 cannot be held to be a justifiable reason for denial of the credit. Apart from the fact that during the said period, the application was pending in the office of Deputy Commissioner, without their being any decision taken by him on the same, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the availability of the credit to the appellant. The substantial benefit, if otherwise available, ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
