AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....marketing office at Bangalore and hence cannot be considered as input service, since the same is not used in or in relation to manufacture of finished goods in the factory. Two Show cause notices were issued and after due process of law the adjudicating authority allowed credit for the period on some of the services and rejected Cenvat credit for the period (i) April, 2008 to July, 2010 and (ii) August, 2010 to May, 2011 in respect of services listed below:- 1. Calibration charges for equipment 2. Manpower recruitment services 3. Maintenance charges for the buildings 4. Banking and financial services 5. Computer service charges 6. Seminar fee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd more specifically in paras 6 & 7 of OIO. He also drew the attention of the Bench to para-7 at page-31 and para-10 at page-33 of the OIO. He further argues that the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel will not come to the rescue as all the case laws talk about the distribution of credit between the Head office and the factory etc. Further, these services are not used in relation to the manufacture of final products. 4. The Ld. Counsel countered the submissions of the Ld. AR and again drew attention of the Bench to para-7 at page 31, wherein the adjudicating authority has observed that the only point to be determined is whether the assessee was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on various input services with bills in the name and address o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no requirement in law that the credit can be taken only on the service tax paid on the services received in the factory premises. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of L.G. BALAKRISHNAN & BROS. Ltd. (supra) supports the appellant's view. 6. With regard to the other aspect that the bills are in the name and address of their Corporate Office, LAB (R& D Unit) and the marketing Office and not in their factory stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Ramgarh Chini Mills Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 1998 (103) ELT 65, relevant para 19 is being reproduced. 19. The only issue now remains is that of taking credit on the strength of invoices in which the address of the Head Office of the Company was given. In this case, we note ....