TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal granted in cenvat credit denial case, remanded for fair reconsideration</h1> <h3>Wabco India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II</h3> Wabco India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II - TMI Issues: Denial of cenvat credit on Management Service, Share Registry Service, Advertisement Service, Company Secretary Service, and Chartered Accountant Service for the period April 2012 to March 2013.In this case, the main issue revolves around the denial of cenvat credit on various services availed by the appellant's four units, including the corporate office, from April 2012 to March 2013. The appellant argues that the credit denial is based on the introduction of Rule 7(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 1.7.2012, whereas the actual disputed period is from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2011. The appellant asserts that this factual error can be proven through ledger accounts, which were brought to the attention of the Commissioner (Appeals) but not considered. The respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the credit availment should be governed by Rule 7(d) of the CCR from 1.7.2012 onwards.Upon examination, it is noted that Rule 7(d) of the CCR, effective from 1.4.2012, specifies the distribution of service tax credit for services used in multiple units based on turnover. However, the disputed services in this case, such as management services and share registry services, are primarily utilized by the corporate office and not uniformly across all units. As per Rule 7(c), credit for services used wholly in one unit should be allocated to that specific unit. The judgment highlights that the services in question, like management and share registry services, are commercial in nature and predominantly availed by the corporate office situated within the appellant's premises.Furthermore, the judgment acknowledges a discrepancy in the period of dispute as pointed out by the Commissioner (Appeals) but notes that no definitive decision was made regarding this issue. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough reconsideration, providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case and receive a reasoned and analyzed order. Ultimately, the appeal is allowed, leading to a remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further review and decision-making.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
