TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 are available in the said debit notes and its enclosures. We find in Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2012 (11) TMI 377 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal examined similar set of facts and held that credit cannot be denied if the inputs have been received by a manufacturer under the invoices of the service providers issued in the name of head office, the head office had taken Cenvat credit and thereafter passed on the same to its manufacturing units, only on the ground that the said credits were passed on by letters and not by the document bearing the name “invoices” or “challans”. The only requirement is that the documents or letters issued by the head office should contain all the details which are required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by their head office/branch office which acted as input service distributor . The allegation is that the debit notes were not prescribed documents and did not contain the details as required in order to avail Cenvat credit. The Original Authority adjudicated the case and held that the appellants are not eligible for credit of ₹ 50,40,216/-. He imposed equivalent amount of penalty on them. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records including written submissions. The learned Counsel for the appellant contested the original order on both the grounds : namely, that the debit note is a valid document for availing credit and it contained all the required details for due availment of credit. We have perused the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntation followed by the Input Service Distributor. Debit note and its enclosures contained all the required details for a valid distribution of eligible credits. In this connection, reference can be made to decided cases :- (i) M/s Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2016 - TIOL - 999 - CESTAT - MUM ; (ii) M/s Mahanagar Gas Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai - II reported in 2015 - TIOL - 1064 - CESTAT - MUM ; (iii) The Supreme Industries Ltd. vs. CCE LTU, Mumbai reported in 2014 - TIOL - 115 - CESTAT - MUM and (iv) CCE, Indore vs. M/s Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. reported in 2011 - TIOL - 1635 - CESTAT - DEL. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, we find the denial of credit to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
