Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Godrej Saralee Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry

2015 (10) TMI 293 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Denial of cenvat credit - GTA services - credit availed by the appellant as a recipient of GTA services discharged by their registered office and distributed to the appellant unit - Held that:- Adjudicating authority has denied the credit solely on the ground that their registered office is not authorized to pay service tax on GTA after taking centralized registration at Mumbai. On perusal of the findings, at para 5.51, 5.52 and 5.53, the adjudicating authority has discussed only on the provisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The registered office is registered as ISD is also not under dispute. The Tribunal in the case of Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur (2012 (12) TMI 612 - CESTAT NEW DELHI), has discussed the identical issue and set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. - there is not even iota of dispute raised by the Mumbai Commissionerate on the centralized registration obtained by the registered office of the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/248/2009 - FINAL ORDER .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f cenvat credit availed by the appellant as a 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 10,21,98,632/-, disallowed credit of ₹ 24,65,925/- and appropriated an amount of ₹ 9,55,938/- towards the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

disallowance of cenvat credit of ₹ 15,09,987/- pertaining to GTA outward transport service for the period 1.1.2006 to 1.11.2006 distributed by the ISD. Their registered office obtained centralised registration which was duly registered by the jurisdictional Service Tax Commissionerate at Mumbai on various services including GTA service. They paid service tax on GTA in respect of all the units and distributed the credit relating to appellant unit as ISD. The revenue not disputed on the pay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t appellant for non-payment of GTA. He relied on the following decisions :- Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur 2013 (29) STR 175 (Tri.-Del.) - CST Ahmedabad Vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. 2009 (14) STR 375 (Tri.-Ahmd.) - Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. Vs CCE 2007 (218) ELT 488 (SC) - CCE Delhi Vs Neel Metal Products 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 juri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nded by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has denied the credit solely on the ground that their registered office is not authorized to pay service tax on GTA after taking centralized registration at Mumbai. On perusal of the findings, at para 5.51, 5.52 and 5.53, the adjudicating authority has discussed only on the provisions of centralized registration and held that service tax paid by the corporate office is not eligible as cenvat credit availed by the appellant. There is no dispute on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d the identical issue and set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The relevant paragraphs 5 & 6 of the said order is reproduced below :- "5. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri A.P. Mathur learned advocate and Shri Bharat Bhushan, learned DR, I find that first issue denying the Cenvat credit of ₹ 8,33,606/- relates to availment of credit on the basis of invoices issued by their registered office which stands registered as ISD. The revenue's sole cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version