9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II, the appellant herein, wrongly availed credit on the basis of bills raised by the service provider on Head Office. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 17,98,778/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of cenvat. By the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. I find that the Adjudicating Authority framed the issue involved in this case as to whether one of the unit out of the four units can avail and utilize service tax credit passed on by the Head Office in the capacity of Input Service Distributor to the exclusion of other units and that too with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut service on its manufacturing units or other units providing output service. Rule 7 does not impose any restriction. The relevant portion of the said case is reproduced below: "4. The assessee had availed the Service tax credit based on the invoices issued by the Chennai office indicating that the Service tax are taken by their unit at Malur. That the Service tax paid by the Chennai unit pertains to advertisement of their product Sabena Dish Wash Bar which was manufactured by their Cuttack Unit and not by the unit at Malur. Therefore, the assessee was dealing with the very same product. Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules governs procedure/manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor by imposing two conditions therein, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rguments advanced by the learned counsel. The registered office and Vatva office both are located in the same place and appellant has simply utilised the credit at Vatva instead of distributing it to various units. As submitted by the learned counsel, during the relevant period, there was no restriction for utilisation of such credit without allocating proportionately to various units. The omission to take registration as an Input Service Distributor can at best be considered as procedural irregularity and in view of the decisions cited, has to be considered sympathetically. Further, it is also noticed that appellant has not got any extra benefit by doing this. In fact from the statement of Shri Chandresh C. Shah, as explained that above Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
