9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit is not admissible on these services on the following grounds:- (i) The invoices for input services are issued with the address of the appellant's Mumbai office and that Mumbai office is not registered as input service distributor. (ii) The input service for godown raised was not received at the factory, as the rent was for sales depot for storage and sale of finished goods at Taloja, Mumbai which is far away from the factory. (iii) The entire credit of service tax paid through the invoices issued with the address of Mumbai/Taloja office is availed by the appellant's factory whereas it should have been availed on pro-rata basis by way of distribution. Therefore the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Willingdon Chri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant Company has amalgamated with INEOS Styrolution ABS India Limited. Therefore, during some period there was more than one factory in operation. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) Castrol India Limited vs. CCE, Vapi - 2013 (30) STR 214 (Tri- Ahmd.) (b) Manatec Electronics Pvt. Limited. vs. CCE, Puducherry - 2017 (47) STR 239(Tri. Chennai) (c) Doshion Limited vs. CCE, Ahmd - 2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri. Ahmd) [CCE vs. Doshion Limited - 2016 (41) STR 884 (Guj.) (d) Vako Seals Pvt. Limited vs. CCE - 2015 (40) STR 594 (Tri.) (e) Valco Industries Limited vs. CCE - 2012 (28) STR 457 (Tri) (f) CCT Limited vs. Oerlikon Baizers Coating India Pvt. Limited - 2019 (366) ELT 624 (Bom.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be denied. 6. Further, it is observed that the appellant have availed credit up to 30.06.2016 but the Company of the appellant was amalgamated somewhere in March 2016. Therefore, from March 2016 to June 2016, there were more than one factories being operated under the same Company. In this fact, if it is found that if the common service was used by more than one factory then appellant shall be entitled for the Cenvat credit only on pro-rata basis attributed to Dahej factory. However, this aspect has not been examined by the lower authorities. It is also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) in its order refrained from giving findings as regard admissibility of input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR. In these circumstances, we have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
