2016 (9) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as confirmed Service Tax demand of Rs. 36,45,963/- under Section 11A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR) alongwith interest and equivalent amount of penalty has also been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 15 of the CCR read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri S.P. in Siddhanta (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that his client is a manufacturer of cement/ cement refractories and has got only one factory in Meghalaya. That appellant is not having any other manufacturing unit anywhere in India and has its Head Office which was not registered as ISD distributor. That the issue involved is taking of CENVAT Credit on services when Service Tax is paid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no suppression/wilful mis-statement with intention to take irregular credit when all the details were given every month to the Department. It is the case of the Ld. Consultant that demands are time barred. 3. Shri A. Roy, supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Headquarters of the appellant should have been registered as ISD distributor before appellant could take CENVAT Credit. Ld. A.R. strongly defended the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceeding is whether appellant can take CENVAT Credit of services utilised in the only factory of the appellant when the payments of service tax were made by the Headquarters of the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n as to the effective date of registration, exercise of discretionary powers for allowing credit deficiencies in documents issued by the input service distributor etc. In the present case the dispute is totally different. The dispute is not as to whether the document issued by the distributor is a valid document or not. But the issue is whether the registered office of the appellant is required to be registered at all when they have only one factory and when the credit has been taken by the factory on the basis of invoices issued by service providers. There is also no indication or no allegation in the show cause notices or in the findings that appellant s factory did not receive the service. In the decisions cited by the learned counsel, a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X