Tribunal grants Cenvat Credit to appellants, rejecting Revenue's stance.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order in favor of the appellants. They were granted the entitlement to avail Cenvat Credit on inputs/capital goods and claim credit on input invoices from the head office, despite it not being registered as an Input Service Distributor, based on relevant legal judgments cited during the proceedings. The Revenue's position was not supported with new arguments, leading to the final decision in favor of the appellants.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Whether the appellants are entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on various inputs under Rule 2 (k) (i) of CCR, 2004.
- Whether the appellants can claim credit on invoices issued by the head office not registered as ISD.

Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Inputs/Capital Goods: The appellant sought to avail Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on inputs like Cables, Construction Chemicals, Welding Rods, Plastic Crates, etc. The appellant's advocate cited several judgments, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. Thirumalai Chemicals and Banco Products Indias Ltd vs. CCE, Vadodara, to support the admissibility of such credits. The tribunal found that the issue of admissibility of credit on inputs/capital goods was indeed covered by the cited judgments, thus allowing the appellant to avail the Cenvat Credit.

2. Admissibility of Credit on Input Invoices from Head Office: Another issue raised was the admissibility of credit on input invoices issued by the head office, which was not registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) at the relevant time. The appellant's advocate referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Dashion Ltd. to support their claim. The tribunal acknowledged that the issue of credit on input invoices from the head office was covered by the Gujarat High Court's judgment, thereby allowing the appellant to claim credit on such invoices.

3. Revenue's Position: The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) but did not provide any new arguments or evidence to counter the appellant's claims.

4. Final Decision: After considering the arguments and legal precedents cited by both parties, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The judgment was pronounced in the open court, concluding the matter in favor of the appellant based on the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs/capital goods and input invoices from the head office as per relevant legal judgments.

---