TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s types of flavours classified under Chapter Heading No 3302 of the 1st Schedule to CETA 1985. M/s Duckworth Flavours India Pvt Ltd got merged with M/s Cargill India Pvt Ltd on 22.09.2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007 and thereafter they got centralized registration under service tax at their Corporate Office in Gurgaon, Haryana. Prior to the merger of M/s Duckworth Flavours India Pvt Ltd with M/s Cargill India Pvt Ltd., M/s Cargill India Pvt Ltd was rendering certain services to Duckworth India Pvt Ltd and was charging service tax on the said services. Debit notes were issued by M/s Cargill India Pvt Ltd to M/s Duckworth India Pvt Ltd for charging such service charges as well as service tax. After the merger, the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order has been passed without considering the submissions of the appellant that M/s Duckworth Flavours India Pvt Ltd got merged with M/s Cargill India Pvt Ltd in September 2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007. As a result of it, for the entire period covered by show-cause notice, both the service provider and the service receiver were one and the same entity and the service tax was not payable at all in the first place. He further submitted that the show-cause notice proposed to deny CENVAT credit only on the ground that the debit notes and e-payments challan in the name of Head Office are not proper documents to avail CENVAT Credit, The eligibility of services as valid input services was never challenged in the show-cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he debit notes and e-payment challans on the ground that they are not the valid documents to avail CENVAT credit as per the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The eligibility of services as valid input services was never challenged in the show-cause notice and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to that extent is not justified and unsustainable in law. Further I find that the appellant and M/s Duckworth Flavours India Pvt Ltd merged into a single entity by way of order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007 and during the period in question, the two entities did not have separate legal existence in the eyes of law and any service provided would be considered as service to self and no service tax li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time because several steps provided by Section 391 to 3944 and the relevant Rules have to be followed and complied with. During the period the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e. the Transferor company and the Transferee company may carry on business, as has happened in this case but normally provision is made for this aspect also in the scheme of amalgamation. In the scheme before us, clause 6(b) does expressly provide that with effect from the transfer date, the transferor company (subsidiary company) shall be deemed to have carried on the business for and on behalf of the transferee company (holding company) with all attendant consequences. It is equally relevant to notice that the Courts have not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it notes and e-payment challans are valid documents for claiming CENVAT credit on input services as per Sub-rule (1)(e) of Rule 9 which clearly specifies that CENVAT credit can be availed on challan evidencing payment of service tax by the service recipient as a person liable to pay service tax. Further, I also hold that out of the CENVAT credit pf Rs. 5,12,010, appellant paid Rs. 4,24,878/- to its group company situated outside India for management consultancy services. Appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit under reverse charge mechanism under Section 66 A. The appellant paid service tax of Rs. 87,132/- on GTA services under reverse charge mechanism as per the Finance Act 1994 used for both inward as well as outward transportat....