TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Shri. V.S. Nankani, Ld. Sr. Counsel with Shri. Prithviraj Chaudhari, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant made following submission. (a) As regard the non obtaining the input service distribution registration at Head Office, he submits that Ld. Commissioner has gravely erred in denying the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the input service for which credit has been utilized for payment of excise duty on goods cleared from the factory. He submits that appellant have only one factory therefore where the invoice is raised in the name of the head office that does not make any difference as the input service was used for the manufacturing unit of the appellant. Merely because at the relevant time ISD registration was not obtained by the appellant, cenvat credit could not have been denied. ISD registration is primarily required for the purpose of distribution of services when the assesse has more than one manufacturing unit which is not the case here. He alternatively submits that even though the ISD registration was not obtained, it is only a procedural lapse, for that reason credit could not have been disallowed. In this regard he placed re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard the denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that service provider registration number is not mentioned on the invoice on the strength of which Cenvat credit was availed, he submits that except service tax registration, all other information is appearing on the invoice. Only due to the reason that service provider's registration number is not appearing on the invoice does not prove that service tax was not discharged by the service provider. This is only procedural lapse for that reason cenvat credit cannot be denied. He further submits that the adjudicating authority has not given any reason for denial of credit on this count therefore it appears that there is no serious lapse on this count. Accordingly, Cenvat credit should not have been disallowed on this ground. He further submits that only for procedural infraction such as non mention of registration number on the invoice of the service provider Cenvat credit cannot be denied. This has been held in following judgments; (i) Formika India Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1995(77) ELT 511(SC)] (ii) Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner[1991(55) ELT 437(SC)] (iii) U.G. Sugar Industries Vs. CCE,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....input service distributors there is no fresh payment of service tax involved, it is only for the purpose of the service tax which was already paid in respect of the services provided by the service provider is passed on to the respective units, therefore the procedure of ISD is nothing but only procedural requirement. This tribunal time and again has held that merely because ISD registration is not obtained Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the assessee's manufacturing unit or to the output service provider. This has been considered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the Doshion Ltd (supra) wherein it was held as under: 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that entire demand has been set-aside except for a small amount, it is felt that no penalty on the employees and the Director is warranted. Accordingly, appeals filed by the Director, General Manager and Authorised Signatory are allowed. This similar issue was also considered in the case of Demosha Chemicals Pvt Ltd (supra) wherein it was held- 9. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the Cenvat credit which has been availed for the appellant of the Service Tax paid based on invoic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em to utilize full credit. It would show that the exercise is totally Revenue neutral and no loss has been caused to the Revenue (in fact Revenue has gained). In the absence of any legal requirement to avail credit based on the services received during the relevant time and in the light of the decision cited by the learned counsel, the procedural irregularity has to be ignored and the demand confirmed has to be set aside on this ground. In the result, demand for Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,07,07,142/- with interest and penalty equal to the same imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 are set aside. In Modern Petrofils v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 627 (Tri.-Ahmd.) case, it was held as under: 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that Commissioner has rightly followed the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DNH Spinners. Even though the appellants have multiple divisions, in the absence of any dispute about the receipt of the services in question by the factory to whom credit has been passed on, the ratio of the cited decision is applicable. In fact Commissioner proceeded to say that the appellants sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with the consequential relief, if any. As regard the issue that invoices are in the name of the head office the credit has been allowed by this Tribunal in case of DNH Spinners(supra) 3. The Revenue in their grounds has raised only technical grounds that the documents were not in the name of the assessee's factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds. I do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. The same issue has been further considered by this Tribunal in case of Bloom Dekor Ltd(Supra) 4. After considering the submissions and records I find that the decisions relied upon by the learned SDR are not applicable to the facts of the case. In all these cases a view was taken that the input service distributor is required to be registered and the effective date of such registration wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at their different location, the cenvat credit is allowable on the ground that all the locations are working in or in relation to storages and or sale of the goods manufactured by the appellant unit, therefore as per the definition of input service existed during the impugned period, the activities related to the business is also defined as input service therefore for this reason Cenvat credit can also not be denied. This has got support from the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Coca Cola India Ltd and Ultratech Cement (Supra). 7. As regard the trading activity, Ld. Counsel has conceded that they are prepared to reverse the cenvat credit proportionate to percentage of trading turnover. Therefore we held that Cenvat credit proportionate to the percentage of trading turnover, as per the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority is recoverable from the appellant. However, we do not propose any penaty on the said proportionate credit. 8. As regard the issue that the in certain cases the invoice of the service providers do not bear the registration number, we find that there is no allegation that under the said invoice service tax was not discharged therefore merely....