Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (10) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate service tax registration. With effect from 7-6-2005, the concept of 'input service distributor' (ISD) was introduced by amendments for Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Under this scheme when the head office of a company providing taxable service is located at a particular place and taxable services are provided by branches located at different places, the head office could avail the Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued in its name and, thereafter, distribute the credit to various branches, by issuing ISD invoices. As per the Rules framed in this regard, an input service distributor was required to obtain registration ISD. However, in this case, during the period from January 2008 to March 2009, the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use the Appellant did not obtain service tax registration specifically as input service distributor, the Cenvat credit availed by them for distribution to branches cannot be denied and that in view of this, the impugned order upholding the Cenvat credit and penalty is not sustainable. 4. Shri Sanjay Jain, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cited the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Khaitan Electricals v. C.C.E., Kolkata-VI reported in 2011 (21) S.T.R. 184 (Tri.-Kolkata), Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut-II reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 347 (Tri.-Del.) = 2011 (22) S.T.R. 473 (Tri.) and Acro Paints Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ja....