TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that the input services have suffered service tax and CENVAT credit can be taken by the appellant and the registration is not a mandatory requirement for claiming CENVAT credit. There is no suppression on the part of the appellant, as the appellants have been filing ST-3 returns for the entire impugned period, which has been admitted by both the authorities and they have disclosed all the facts in the ST-3 returns and therefore, the department is barred from going back and holding that the availment of CENVAT credit by the appellant as incorrect or illegal. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/28259/2013-SM - 20790/2017 - Dated:- 23-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Harish Bindu Madhavan, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the registration is not mandatory on the part of M/s. DHS to raise apportioning invoices. Further, DHS and the appellants are registered as two different entities and the concept of input service distributor is not applicable in this case. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order did not accept the contention of the appellant and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.1 He also submitted that registration is not mandatory for availing the CENVAT credit. Registration is mere a procedural requirement and procedural infirmities are no bar on substantial benefits available under law. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: CCE vs. Home Ashok Leyland Ltd.: 2007 (210) ELT 178 (SC) Vimal Enterprise vs. UOI: 2006 (195) ELT 267 (Guj.) CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Raja magnetics Ltd.: 2010 (250) ELT 352 (Kar.) Sanghi Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2008 (230) ELT 375 (Tri.-Bang.) North Eastern Tubes Ltd. vs. CCE: 2008 (225) ELT 152 (Tri.-Kol.) Govt. of India vs. Modern Process Printers: 2006 (204) ELT 632 (GOI) 4.2 He also submitted that it is admitted by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire case is revenue neutral as it is not disputed that the service tax was charged by the service provider and paid to the credit of the Central Government. The same service tax was reimbursed by the appellant to the service provider. In other words, there is no revenue loss to the Government and the exercise is revenue neutral. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: CCE, Pune vs. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) CCE, Vadodara-II vs. Indeos ABS Ltd.: 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.) CCE, Ahmedabad-II vs. Reclamation Welding Ltd.: 2014 (308) ELT 542 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4.4 He also submitted that the entire demand is time barred as none of the circumstances prescribed under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat CENVAT credit availed by them on the invoices raised by DHS on them was correct and legal and in view of the Form of ST-3 returns, they were not required to declare or disclose the details of their transaction with DHS and in such circumstances, suppression cannot be alleged and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as the matter involved interpretation of legal provisions. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant have paid the service tax to DHS who in turn has paid the same to the service provider and it is also an admitted fact that the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
