TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ONER OF C. EX., VADODARA [2010 (7) TMI 319 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it was held that no allegation of non receipt of input service or the allegation of service not relatable to the factory and also in view of the fact that invoice was in the name of head office of the same factory and not in the name of some one else, credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/128/12 - FO/A/76138/2017 - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member(Judicial) Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue Shri S.P.Majumder, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P.K.Choudhary. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, M.S. Billet classifiable u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o their factory. The endorsement states, Nature of expenses incurred at plant site and bill raised to Hq. Now bill endorsed to plant. Therefore, the appellant have complied with the requirements of endorsement. IN that case the credit relates to the factory. The Tribunal in Modern Petrofills (supra) and DNH Spinners (supra) have held that where services had been rendered at the factory, credit of service tax availed cannot be denied merely on account of the fact that the service providers had issued the invoices addressed to the headquarters. This is precisely the case here. In view of the facts brought out as above and the law laid down by the Tribunal referred to above, there is no case for denied of credit. The appellant correctly avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. 418 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] (d) Modern Petrofils v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara [2010 (20) S.T.R. 627 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] (e) Commr. of C.Ex., Jaipur v. National Engineering Industries Ltd. [2016 (42) S.T.R. 945 (Raj.)] (f) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Dashion Ltd. [2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.)] 6. In the case of Modern Petrofils vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Vadodara (supra) , the Tribunal held as under :- 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that Commissioner has rightly followed the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DNH Spinners. Even though the appellants have multiple divisions, in the absence of any dispute about the receipt of the services in question by the factory to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.)]. In view of the fact that there is no allegation of non receipt of input service or the allegation of service not relatable to the factory and also in view of the fact that invoice was in the name of head office of the same factory and not in the name of some one else, the decision of the Commissioner that extended period is not invocable also has to be upheld. Since I have taken a view that appellants are eligible for the credit and suppression of facts and extended period are not invocable, the question of penalty does not arise. Accordingly the penalty imposed is also set aside. In view of the above discussion, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected and appeal filed by the party is allowed. 7. In view of the above discussions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
