TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of registration of Hyderabad unit. In this factual matrix, despite Hyderabad unit of appellant, instead of Visakhapatnam unit, paying service tax on the GTA services and the challan also giving details of Hyderabad unit, there is no dispute that both form part of the same corporate entity and the services were used in the Visakhapatnam unit and that Cenvat credit against the same challans was not availed by their Hyderabad unit. There is substantial compliance and agreement with Rule 9(1)(e) of CCR 2004 in the present case - the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 31263 of 2018 - A/31042/2019 - Dated:- 8-11-2019 - HON'BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Visakhapatnam unit. On being pointed out by the audit officers of the Commissionerate they had subsequently, obtained service tax registration for the Visakhapatnam unit also. 3. The dispute in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit in the Visakhapatnam unit in respect of the services rendered in their Visakhapatnam unit on which the service tax was paid by their Hyderabad unit and the challan mentioned the name and details of Hyderabad unit only. It is the case of the revenue that they are not entitled to the Cenvat credit because the challans cleary indicate the name, address, assessee code as well as the Commissionerate and division and range of their Hyderabad unit. It is the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds A challan evidencing payment of service tax, by the service recipient as a person liable to pay service tax . In this case the alleged service recipient is the appellant with their unit in Visakhapatnam. Evidently, no service tax has been paid by the service recipient. The challan only shows payment of service tax by their Hyderabad unit. It is not the case where service was availed by the corporate office and distributed through ISD invoices. In the absence of a document as required under Rue 9(1)(e) of CCR 2004 the appellant is not entitled to Cenvat credit. Therefore, the appeal may be rejected and the impugned order maybe upheld. 6. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. Rue 9(1) lists ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
