9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit during the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 on the invoices which are bearing the addresses of the branches which are not registered and whether the demand was time barred. 4. Brief facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details, are during EA-2000 audit of the records of respondent, officers of the audit team came to a conclusion that respondent had wrongly availed CENVAT credit on invoices bearing the name and address of the branches which are not centrally registered. On such conclusion, a show-cause notice was issued. Assessee-respondent contested the show-cause notice before the authority on the ground that they being Multi Modal Transport Operator from Mumbai, have a centralised office at Mumbai and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere actually received by respondent and their branch offices; payment of such services received from the Head Office is not disputed and the respondent have accounted for all the invoices and availed CENVAT credit accordingly. It is the submission that in the case of SGS India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2012 (26) STR 395 (Tri-Mum) it was held that when the Bill of Entry show the address of head office but the goods were received in the factory, credit could not be denied. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Parekh Plast India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 46 (Tri. Ahmd). He would submit that as regards non-registration of the registered office for centralized accounting during the period when CENVAT credit was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the service providers have discharged the applicable service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' or as the case may be. On the factual matrix we find that the adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the proceedings initiated in the show-cause notice. Looking into the entire issue from another angle, we find that there is no dispute that the respondent had registered his Mumbai office under Centralised Registration. Prior to registration also it is not disputed that the Mumbai office of the respondent, was accounting for all the transactions, used to take place between the respondent and their customers or the service providers. The reasoning of the adjudicating authority in holding that CENVAT credit cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
