2016 (8) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t a Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,46,659/- was taken by the Appellant on the basis of services received by the Headquarters of the Appellant. That Cenvat Credit was taken on the basis of photocopy of such document of services rendered to the Head Office. That taking of credit on the basis of Service Tax invoices issued to the Headquarters is admissible in view of the following case laws.:- a) Alarsin vs. CCE, Mumbai-I [2015-TIOL-766-CESTAT-MUM] b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara vs. M/s.Modern Petrofils [2013-TIOL-659-CESTAT-AHM] It was also argued by the Learned C.A. that not issuing of ISD invoice is only a procedural lapse which cannot be taken as the grounds for denying Cenvat Credit. That there was no restrictions during the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Auxiliary Services. For the products manufactured in Gujarat as well as in Mumbai. It is also undisputed that the goods were being manufactured and cleared from Udhana, Gujarat as well as Mumbai. It is the case of the Revenue that service tax paid on the services rendered for the marketing of the produced in Gujarat needs to be denied proportionately. Both the lower authorities recorded their findings that the appellant could not have utilized CENVAT credit at Mumbai for the products manufactured and cleared from Gujarat. The lower authorities have also held that marketing services are not interconnected with the manufacturing of the goods. 4. Learned Counsel would take me through the facts of the case and case law and submit that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 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 procedural irregularity and in view of the decisions cited, has to be considered sympathetically." 7. I find that both the decisions in the cases of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals (supra) Market Cre....