TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the sake of accounting at Head Office, there can be no disallowance. In view of the common registration number under the centralised registration scheme, the impugned order is not maintainable and also suffers from mistake of facts and mistake of law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 51068 of 2019-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 50590/2020 - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - HON BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) APPEARANCE: Shri Aalok Arora. Advocate for the appellant Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative for the respondent ANIL CHOUDHARY: Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved herein relates to disallowance of cenvat credit of service tax on input services like GTA, Manpower se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant factory but by the Head Office at Delhi which was not proper documents. Show cause notice was adjudicated vide order in original dated 29.11.2017 on contest and the proposed demand was confirmed alongwith equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to reject the appeal observing that, services involving service tax amounting to ₹ 11,52,487/-, the services are used at the manufacturing unit and the legal service involving ₹ 42,207/- was used at Head Office. Further, observed that as per the amended registration, the appellant obtained registration and provided service from both the addresses i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived in factory, which is not the allegation in the show cause notice. Further, he observed that the appellant has not been able to prove that they have taken cenvat credit twice, which is also not alleged in the show cause notice. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned order is fit to be set aside and appeal allowed with consequential benefit. 5. Heard the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relied upon the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the appellant company admittedly is having only one factory and their Head Office is located at Delhi, having a common registration under centralised registration scheme. There is no question involved of distribution and thus, I hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
