Appellant wins appeal on cenvat credit denial, Tribunal rejects ISD route, Revenue's appeal dismissed

The appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant due to the denial of cenvat credit being overturned by the First Appellate Authority. The appellant successfully contested the denial of credit for service tax paid by service providers and the issue of distribution of credit by the Whitefield unit. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument against being compelled to follow the Input Service Distributor (ISD) route for availing cenvat credit, ultimately setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and disposing of the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit by the appellant for service tax paid by service providers.
2. Dispute regarding distribution of cenvat credit by the appellant's Whitefield unit.
3. Adjudication of show-cause notice contesting cenvat credit denial.
4. Appeal against Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal.
5. Commissioner's show-cause notice for denial of entire cenvat credit.
6. Preliminary objection in Appeal No. ST/988/2011.
7. Interpretation of Section 84 of the Finance Act 1994.
8. Applicability of ISD route for cenvat credit availing.
9. Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves three appeals disposed of by a common order due to interlinking issues. The appellant was denied cenvat credit for service tax paid by service providers, leading to a dispute over distribution of credit by the Whitefield unit. The Order-in-Original denying credit was contested, with the First Appellate Authority allowing the credit but not upholding the direction to follow the ISD route. Another appeal was filed against an Order-in-Revision seeking to review the denial of cenvat credit, which was contested on the grounds of jurisdictional limitations. The Commissioner's powers under Section 84 of the Finance Act 1994 were scrutinized, highlighting restrictions on passing orders when an appeal is pending. The Tribunal found the Order-in-Revision to be legally sound. On the issue of ISD route, the appellant argued against being forced to take that route, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant could have availed cenvat credit without registering as an ISD, rendering the demand raised by lower authorities baseless. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, leading to the disposal of the Revenue's appeal as well. The appeals were ultimately disposed of in favor of the appellant based on the revenue-neutral nature of the issue.

---