TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry for refund - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/405/2012 - A/94695/16/STB - Dated:- 21-12-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the appellant Shri D. Nagvenkar, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No: 13/ST/2012/C dated 19/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Nagpur. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are, the appellant is having coal washeries at various places and they were having centralized billing and accounting system, and are registered with the service tax department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after these two units were registered with the department. 4. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, would draw our attention to the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules and Service Tax Rules and submit that a person has to follow the rules in order to avail CENVAT credit. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both the sides and perused the records. 6. The undisputed facts are that the appellant s head office is registered with the authorities for discharging output service since 2004; the head office is having the facility of centralized accounting and centralized billing, generates bills for the services rendered from the two branches which is in dispute, the balance sheet of the appellant is comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. 8. The Tribunal in the case of Manipal Advertising Services Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore 2010 (19) STR 506 (Tri.-Bang.) has held as under: 6. It is undisputed in this case that the appellant is not having any Service tax registration, in respect of branch offices on whose name the invoices were issued by the service provider. It is also not disputed that the appellant has got centralized billing and cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rules. 7. If a person is discharging Service tax liability from his registered premises, the benefit of Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid by the service providers cannot be denied to the appellant, only on the ground that the said invoices are in the name of branch offices. There is no dispute that the branch offices are not registered with the Service tax authorities and they are not discharging the Service tax liability, obviously, as the appellant is discharging Service tax liability on the services provided by branches. 8. We find that the document on which the appellant has taken the Service tax credit, though in the name of branch office are actually being paid from the premises wherein the Service tax registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
