TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pair and maintenance service received by them is only with reference to products manufactured at Shahjahanpur unit, denial of credit is not justifiable - credit allowed. IPR services - Held that: - the lower authority is not correct in holding that trademark licence is also for goods procured from other units and marketed by the appellants. The agreement is mainly for use of trademark for manufacturing and selling. The trademark ‘Electrolux’ cannot be used for the trading goods in terms of the agreement - We are in agreement with the appellant that the terms of agreement are to be read together to understand scope of the same - credit allowed. Advertisement service - Held that: - admittedly the Kelvinator brand products are manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant had two other manufacturing units engaged in the manufacture of DTH and related products at Warora (Mah.) and manufacture of electronic products like colour televisions, refrigerators. washing machines, A.Cs, DVDs, etc. at Aurangabad unit. The dispute in the present appeals is, with reference to the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant, on repair and maintenance service, IPR service and advertisement service in their unit at Shahjahanpur. The Revenue entertained a view that these input services were not exclusively attributable to the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant at their Shahjahanpur unit. Accordingly, proceedings initiated against the appellant resulted in these orders by the original authorities. Credits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant at its Shahjahanpur unit. g) Affidavit of Shri Sheeraj Singh, clearly stating therein that the appellant unit is not engaged in the marketing or sale of products manufactured by other units of the appellant or any other company. h) There were separate agreements entered by other units of the appellant company with the service providers. 3. The ld Counsel further submitted that the denial of credit on advertisement services is not correct. The appellant is selling refrigerators manufactured at Shahjahanpur and the services were received in their name and payments were also made by them. Supporting purchase orders and invoices, for advertisement services, have been submitted. 4. Without prejudice to the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant s unit at Shahjahanpur alone. In terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, input service credit is available only when the manufacturer of excisable goods is availing and utilizing the said services. In the present case, the appellant s unit at Shahjahanpur have not availed and utilized such services exclusively. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The first point for decision is, whether or not, the appellant manufacturing unit at Shahjahanpur is eligible to take credit on repair and maintenance service provided by M/s Tekcare India Pvt Ltd. The Revenue contested that such repairs and maintenance is not only with reference to goods manufactured at Shahjahanpr unit. The appellants strongly contested the asser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were sought to be made in the agreement by the appellant by way of a corrigendum dated 01.10.2010. Various objections and shortcomings were recorded by the original authority against the validity of such corrigendum. We note that even without reference to the corrigendum, the fact, as assorted by the appellant, could not be brushed-aside. In view of the evidences and supporting documents submitted by the appellant to assert that the repair and maintenance service received by them is only with reference to products manufactured at Shahjahanpur unit, we find denial of credit is not justifiable. Accordingly, we hold the finding, to this effect, recorded by the original authorities are not sustainable. 8. On the issue of IPR services, we n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute, are covered by the scope of input services and are otherwise eligible for credit for the appellants. In other words, eligibility of credit on this input services to the appellant, as a whole, cannot be denied. The dispute narrows down to the exclusive use of such input services only at appellant unit at Shahjahanpur. In this connection, we note that the appellants received invoice, supporting the payment of service tax on these services, and are entitled to avail or distribute such credit in their capacity as input service distributor. Referring to Rule 2(m) and provisions of Rule 7 of CCR, 2004, we find that the alternate arguments of the appellants have legal force. On that ground also, denial of these credits is not justifiable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
