2016 (8) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The issue involved in the appeals filed by the above appellants being same, the appeals were heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. During the verification of records, it was noticed by the department that the appellants have availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the branches common sharing expenses under the category of business auxillary services as input services on the basis of invoices issued by M/s Amararaja Batteries Ltd.(ARBL). The department entertained a view that the appellants were having an understanding with M/s ARBL for sharing of common expenses incurred at the common branch offices and the invoices appear to be raised by M/s ARBL merely to collect expenses shared by them. That no service is rend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant company was thus functional and integrally connected with the factory, as the branch provided the marketing support in connection with the manufacturing operations. The department has denied the credit alleging that these services provided by ARBL and MPPL do not have a nexus with the manufacture of finished products, and that these transactions are only in the nature of sharing of common expenses. She laid thrust on the purchase orders and argued that these documents would reveal the nexus between the services availed at branch and the factory. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment laid in CCE Bangalore, III, Vs Standzen Toyotetsu India(P)Ltd -2011(23) STR 444(Karnataka), Wipro Ltd. Vs CCE Bangalore 2013(289) ELT 184, S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es under the provisions of registered Input Service Distributor. From the invoices, it is seen that ARBL and MPPL have extended their financial support to appellants to meet their expenses. That there is no element of service is involved, as there is no relationship of service provider and service recipient; That appellants are not entitled to claim the credit upon the invoices. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the appeal records. The main allegation for denying credit is that there is no service rendered by ARBL and MPPL to the appellants. That the arrangement is merely sharing of common expenses. Undisputedly, the department was collecting service tax for all these years, from ARBL and MPPL who are registered with the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot been provided or services received are not input services. Therefore, we find that appellant has been able to make a prima facie case on merits for waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery during the pendency of appeal. Accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit of adjudged dues is waived and stay against recovery granted during the pendency of appeals". 6. Further this tribunal vide Order dated 17-12-2015 in Appeal No.E/22611/ and 22613 of 2014 has answered the issue in favour of the appellants. When the department has accepted the tax on the services provided by sister concern to appellants, then they cannot deny credit alleging that no services were rendered. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that ARBL and MPPL are sepa....