TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L EXCISE VERSUS DASHION LTD [ 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has clearly decided the issue in favour of assessee to hold that mere non-obtaining of the registration as ISD cannot disentitle the assessee from claiming the credit and the same is purely a procedural lapse which is curable in nature. In the instant case, the appellant has obtained ISD registration though belatedly. However, the same cannot be the reason to deny the credit and therefore, by respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble High Court, we are inclined to allow the credit on the said count. In so far as the invoices addressed to the units other than assessee s ISD unit, there is no dispute that the subject input services have been received and tax h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OURT] and THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD., THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ 2016 (3) TMI 441 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. There are no reason to deny credit availed by the appellant in the instant case and hence, we uphold the appellant s eligibility to avail credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/02431-02432/2010, 25864 & 25865/2013 - Final Order Nos. 20613-20616/2020 - Dated:- 5-3-2020 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (J) and P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T) Shri K.S. Ravishankar, N. Anand and B. Venugopal, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri P. Gopalkumar, Jt. Commr. (AR), for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opal, Learned Advocates appeared for the appellant assessee and Sri P. Gopalkumar, Learned Jt. Commissioner appeared for the Revenue. 4(i) The Learned Advocates appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that the receipt of input services and tax paid nature of input services are not in dispute. With regarding to delay in obtaining ISD registration, they submitted that the issue in this regard has already been settled in their favour by various decisions of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that credit should not be denied on grounds of technical reasons when the receipt of goods/services and their duty/tax paid nature are not in dispute. They relied on several decisions incl., the decisions in the cases of Doshion Ltd. v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 611 (Kar.), CCE v. Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 578 (Kar.), Hema Engg Ind. Ltd. v. CCE - 2016 (45) S.T.R. 383 (Tri. - Mum.), etc. The Ld. Advocate also disputed the Central Excise duty demand on the ground of time bar and also contested the imposition of penalty in absence of any fraud or suppression. 5. The Learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue supported the impugned orders and submitted that credit should not be allowed for want of ISD registration and the lapses in the invoices as mentioned in the impugned orders. He submitted that credit has been rightly denied and hence, the appeals filed by the assessee be rejected. 6. Heard both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for registration within the time prescribed. However, there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons disentitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted. It was in this background that the Tribunal viewed the requirement as curable. Particularly when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty. Q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced in the definition of input services as was applicable during the impugned period. The definition appearing under Rule 2(l) of the Credit Rules was very wide covering within its ambit all the services which are used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. No exclusion was provided in the definition to deny the credit on aforesaid services. In so far as catering services, the decisions rendered for the period prior to amendment made in March, 2011 as also relied by the appellant, in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) and Sansera Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. We do not find any reason to deny credit availed by the appellant in the instant case and hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
