TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services and accordingly, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that such Canvet credit availed by the respondent cannot be denied. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order as no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises - appeal dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Appearance: For the Appellant(s) No. 1 : Mr Nikunt K Raval(5558) For the Opponent(s) No. 1 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nikunt K. Raval for the appellant. 2. By this Tax Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant Revenue Department has raised the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssuing statement giving the details of the credit transferred. The respondent took the Cenvat Credit distributed on the strength of the statement issued by the Head Office at Mumbai as an ISD Rule 7 of the Rules which was enforced during the period of dispute provided for the manner for distribution of Credit by an Input Service Distributor. 3.3. It was the case of the respondent that at the relevant time, there was no requirement for registration as the registration provision was introduced vide Notification No. 27/2005-ST, Service Tax (Registration of Specific Category of Persons) Rules, 2005. 3.4. The respondent obtained the ISD registration on 18.08.2005, however, as the credit was distributed by the Head Office before obtaining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. In the present case the Cenvat Credit was denied on two count:- 1) That the appellant have availed the Cenvat Credit on the strength of photocopy of invoices of various service providers which is in favour of appellant's Head Office. Secondly, the Head Office was not registered as an ISD, therefore the Head Office could not have distributed credit under a cover of invoice in terms of Rule 4A(1)(i) of the Rules. As regard, the issue is that whether the appellant has correctly availed the credit on the strength of photocopy. We find that the credit was denied only on the presumption that there is a possibility of availing the crept by other unit of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action. As regard, the issue that the appellant Head Office was not registered as an ISD, therefore, the distribution of the credit is not admissible as Cenvat Credit to the appellant, we find that there is no dispute about the payment of Cenvat Credit on the input service received and credit thereof was distributed by the Head Office. It has not been established by the department that the credit which distributed on the invoices was distributed to more than one manufacturing unit of the appellant, as the same was neither a charge in the show cause notice nor evident in the impugned order. We find force in the appellant submission that the appellant's Head Office had complete record of taking and distributing the credit which shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced before the authority, it was held by the Tribunal that as the procurement of such services was by the Head Office and the original invoices were lying with the Head Office, there is no charge in show-cause notice to the effect that there is a possibility of availing the credit by other Unit of the respondent. 4. From the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal, it can be seen that the respondent-assessee had availed the Cenvat credit on the basis of the statement provided by the Head Office after procuring the goods and services and accordingly, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that such Canvet credit availed by the respondent cannot be denied. 5. In view of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
