2016 (7) TMI 1205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Surana argued that adjudicating authority under Order-in-Original dated 10/08/2010 only rejected the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 9,92,995/- based on non registration of input service distributor. That no orders were passed by the adjudicating authority regarding admissibility of credit on input services under CENVAT Credit Rules. That first appellate authority under Order-in-Appeal dated 31/3/2014 has also discussed admissibility of CENVAT Credit on input services on merits under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which was not appealed against by the Revenue.It was thus his case that first appellate authority has gone beyond the grounds of appeal while disallowing credit of Rs. 9,42,995/- on merits. Regarding non-registration of head office of 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

..... This fact is not disputed that appellant is having only one factory where the services were availed. On the issue of non registration of head office as ISD, Ld. C.A. has relied upon the judgment of Gujrat High Court in the case of Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Dashion Ltd.[ 2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.)]. In para 7 of this case the Hon ble Gujrat High Court held as follows regarding non-registration of the unit as input service distributor: "7. The second objection of the Revenue as noted was with respect of non-registration of the unit as input service distributor. It is true that the Government had framed Rules of 2005 for registration of input service distributors, who would have to make application to the jurisdictional Superint....