TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are having their central Head Office at Jaipur. The appellant availed certain services like Selling Commission, Royalty, Consultancy & Professional, Banking Charges, Audit Fee, AMC Charges, etc. on which service tax was paid and invoices were raised in the name of the Head Office. The Jaipur unit of the appellant has taken Cenvat Credit on all these services. The case of the Revenue is that as their head office is not registered as input service distributor, therefore, Jaipur unit is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit on these services. It is also in the case of Revenue that services in question have not been only utilized by Jaipur unit. Therefore, 100 % credit is not entitled for Jaipur unit. In these set of facts, for the period Februar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. On the other hand Ld. AR strongly oppose the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that in this case the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on services which has been used by them in their factory as per Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Admittedly, in this case the invoices are not in the name of the appellant who is a manufacturer. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit. He further submits that appellant is not registered as Input Service Distributor, Therefore, the Cenvat Credit on the services availed by the Head Office cannot be availed by the appellant. He submits that as there is a rule frame for availment of Cenvat Credit and appellant has not followed the procedure under Rules, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t since the invoices/bills are not in the name of the appellant they are not valid documents to avail Cenvat credit under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 read with Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, therefore, the credit availed by them on the basis of those bills/documents are not admissible. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to disallow/demand the credit availed by them along with interest, imposition of penalty was also proposed. After following due process of law, adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 40,83,617/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest. The adjudicating aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn Petrofils (para 4) are directly on the point." 8. Further in the case Doshion Ltd. (Supra) again this Tribunal has examined the issue and observed as under: "We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The registered office and Vatva office both are located in the same place and appellant has simply utilised the credit at Vatva instead of distributing it to various units. As submitted by the learned counsel, during the relevant period, there was no restriction for utilisation of such credit without allocating proportionately to various units, The omission to take registration as an Input Service Distributor can at best be considered as pro....