TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not proved to be received and consumed for providing output service which exported, therefore there is no nexus of input service attributed to Cenvat Credit with the export service. (b) Rs. 5,49,209/- correct input service invoice was not produced therefore nexus between input and output service cannot be established. (c) Rs. 5927/- invoice do not bear service tax registration number of service provider. 2. Shri. Mihir Deshmukh, Ld. Counsel referred to the ground of appeals wherein it was explained that all the services were essential for providing output service in the ground of appeal. Services namely, Mandap Keeper Service, Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd[2011(271) ELT 58]. (b) Doshin Ltd Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2013(288) ELT 291(Tri. Ahmd)] (c) DEMOSHA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., DAMAN[2014 (34) S.T.R. 758 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] He submits that while distributing the services from head office to the various units, the distribution was done as per the principle of seats in each unit that means depending upon the quantum of manpower. In the IT industry services are provided by man power and quantum of services can be ascertained on that basis only. Therefore distribution was correctly done and there is no need of exact co-relation of services distributed and used in the individual unit. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi)] As regard the non mention of Service Tax registration on certain input invoices, he submits that this technical error committed by the service provider of the input services, there is no dispute that service tax amount was mentioned on the invoice of the service provider therefore merely because service tax registration of the service provider was not mentioned on the input invoices refund cannot be denied. In this regard, he placed reliance on following judgments: (a) Imagination Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II[2011-TIOL-719-CESTAT-MUM] (b) Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that they have distributed the credit to various unit on proper basis on principle of seats therefore in my view there cannot be any dispute for distribution of the services and availment of the same by the appellant, therefore Ld. Commissioner has not appreciated the proportionate allocation of credit in the individual unit. As regard denial of refund of Rs. 5,49,209/- on the ground that invoice do not bear correct address, I find that as per the submission of the appellant that the service provider has made an inadvertent error instead of address of unit I address of unit II has mentioned and vice-versa, however there is no dispute ....