TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vely. 2. Brief facts noticed are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of Ball Bearing & Axle Box falling under Chapter 84 & 86 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and registered with the Central Excise Department. The assessee is having three units at Jaipur, Manesar and Niwai and its Central Head Office is at Jaipur. The assessee availed Cenvat Credit on certain services like Selling Commission, Royalty, Consultancy & Professional, Banking Charges, Audit Fee, AMC Charges etc. on which service tax was paid and invoices were raised in the name of the Head Office. The Jaipur unit of the assessee has taken Cenvat Credit on all these services. 3. A show cause notice was issued by the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at head Office the assessee placed order for purchase of inputs services that may be utilized commonly by all the three units for business of manufacture of the homogeneous final product i.e. Bearing falling under Chapter 84 of First Schedule to the Central Excixe Tariff Act, 1985 and Service Tax paid on those input services availed as Cenvat Credit was certainly to be utilized for payment of duty leviable on goods manufactured at unit located at head Office and payment of service tax on the output services provided by the Company. Since all the orders for purchase of input services are placed by the Head office i.e. the unit of the Company situated at Khatipura Road, Jaipur, where credit in respect of Service Tax paid on the services for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the Tribunal vide order impugned came to the conclusion that the assessee has been able to prove that all the three units being one, there being common management, the assessee cannot be denied Cenvat Credit availed by it and finding that the Cenvat Credit is admissible, allowed the appeals of the assessee, particularly relying upon the judgment in the case of Doshion Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad (2013) 288 ELT 291 (Tri). 6. Ld. counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment in the case of Doshion Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad (supra) is distinguishable on facts and the Tribunal was unjustified in wholly placing reliance on the said judgment. He also contended that there may be a common management but the Commissioner, while analyzing the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or producer of final products or provider of output service which receives invoices issued u/R. 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 towards purchases of input services and issues invoices, bill or as the case may be, challan for the purposes of distributing the credit of service tax paid on the said services to such manufacturer or producer or provider, as the case may be. 9. Rule 7 pertains to manner of distribution of credit by input service distributer. At the relevant time, this Rule 7 permitted input service distributor to distribute Cenvat Credit in respect of service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service, subject to the two conditions, viz:- "(a) the credit distributed against a d....