TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in the said rule have no application to the facts of this case. The statute specifically provides for taking of cenvat credit upon fulfillment of the conditions that the input service has been received and utilized for the intended purpose and in absence of any specific findings that the credit has not been mis-utilized by the appellant, credit should be allowed to Unit I, even if, the input services have been provided to the Unit II. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 entitles a manufacturer to take cenvat credit of service tax paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of the final product. In the present case since the ultimate finished product manufactured in the factory of Unit I who removed the goods on payment of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit attributable to such service was taken in the books of accounts of Unit - I. Taking of such credit in the books of Unit I was disputed by Central Excise Department on the ground that though the service tax invoices are in the name of unit II but the credit has been taken in the books of Unit I, which is not in conformity with the cenvat statute. The proceedings initiated in this regard culminated in the adjudication dated 19.01.2012, wherein cenvat credit taken in the books of Unit I to the tune of ₹ 6,16,403/- was disallowed and equal amount of penalty was imposed. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the adjudication order. Hence this present appeal is before this Tribunal. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itles a manufacturer to take the cenvat credit, if the input service is received by the manufacturer. He, further submits that since the invoices were in the name of unit II and the cenvat credit was taken by the Unit I, without following the procedures prescribed in Notification No.214/86 dated 25.03.1986, the appellant shall not be eligible to take cenvat credit on service tax paid by the Service provider. To substantiate his above stand, the ld. D.R. has relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal reported in 2010 260 ELT 3 (S.C.) and Eagle Flask Industries Ltd vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2004 (171) ELT 296 (S.C.). He further submits that since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provides for taking of cenvat credit upon fulfillment of the conditions that the input service has been received and utilized for the intended purpose and in absence of any specific findings that the credit has not been mis-utilized by the appellant, credit should be allowed to Unit I, even if, the input services have been provided to the Unit II. In this contest, I find support from this Tribunal s decision cited by ld. Chartered Accountant in the case of Greaves Cotton Ltd. (supra) . The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted herein below:- 7. In the present case, M/s.Greaves Cotton Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of IC Engine and Diesel Engine through their Unit-I and Unit-II respectively. There is no dispute th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services. There are no other restrictions under the rules. The restrictions sought to be applied by the Department in this case in limiting the distribution of the Service Tax credit made in respect of the Malur unit on the ground that the services were used in respect of the Cuttack Unit finds no mention in the relevant rules. As such, restricting the distribution of Service Tax credit in a manner as has been done by the impugned order of the lower appellate authority (original authority had approved of such distribution) cannot be upheld. In case the Department wants to place such restriction as is sought to be placed in the case, the rule is required to be amended. 8. The submissions of the ld. D.R. that the requirement of Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
