TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary to enter into the issue of limitation - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20294/2015 - A/30373/2017 - Dated:- 2-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeal is filed against the denial of CENVAT credit on input services. 2. The appellants are registered with Central Excise Department and are engaged in manufacture of Lead Acid Batteries. They are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on input services. During the period from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 it was observed that appellants have availed input service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-TIOL-534-CESTAT-AHM] and M/s National Engineering Industries Ltd., Vs. CCE, Jaipur-1 [2015-TIOL-1728-CESTAT-DEL] to canvass the proposition that credit cannot be denied for the reason that the Head office has not obtained ISD registration. 4. The other allegation is that the documents on which credit is taken are not valid documents. The Ld. Counsel argued that though appellant has taken credit on the office memos forwarded by the Head office, the said documents establish the payment of service tax as well as other details required as per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. He relied upon the judgment in Shree Cement Ltd., Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2013 (29) STR 77 (Tri. Del)] and argued that in the said judgment it was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration and therefore, the credit availed by the appellants are not proper. He submitted that the irregular credit would not have come to light for the verification by department and therefore the show cause notice issued invoking extended period is legal and proper. He also pointed out that appellant has not put forward the ground of limitation in the grounds of appeal and therefore, the same cannot be considered. 6. I have heard both sides. 7. The credit has been disallowed on two grounds. Firstly, because the documents on which the credit has been taken are not proper in terms of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In this aspect, the discussions made by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cements Ltd., (supra) is note worthy. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit has been properly accounted. Similar question arose for consideration in the case of Patel Air Freight Vs. CCE, Cus ST, Hyderabad [2016 (45) STR 404 (Tri-Hyd)]. The Tribunal therein held that availment of credit on consolidation and summarization of Air Way Bill in fortnightly Cargo Sales Report was proper. The non registration of the Head office has ISD and the distribution of the credit on documents other than bills/invoices can be considered as procedural infractions as discussed in the above case laws. From the foregoing discussions, I find no grounds to disallow the credit. As the appellant succeeds on merits, I consider not necessary to enter into the issue of limitation. The impugned order disallowing the credit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
