TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit and confirmed the demand as follows:- a) "I hereby confirm the demand of Rs. 25,22,708/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight only) availed on ineligible / improper documents during the period from September, 2010 to March, 2013 as detailed in Annexure I, under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A (5) of Central Excise Act, 1944. b) I hereby confirm the demand Rs. 45,21,854/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Four Only) availed on ineligible input services during the period from September, 2010 to March, 2013 as detailed in Annexure II to XI, under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(5) of Central Excise Act, 1944. c) I hereby confirm the demand of Rs. 6,11,11,463/- (Rupees Six Crores Eleven Lakhs Eleven Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Three only) availed on ineligible input services during the period from March, 2009 to March, 2012 as detailed in Annexure XII, under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(5) of Central Excise Act, 1944. d) I hereby confirm the interest on the above mentioned amounts wrongly availed as Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 1016421.00 1621219.00 6.1 She submitted that the period involved is from March 2009 to March 2015. An amount of Rs. 6,11,11,463/- is denied alleging that the appellant has not taken ISD registration. She adverted to para 6.2 of the show cause notice and submitted that the department alleges that the appellant without obtaining registration as Input Service Distributor issued ISD invoices on the basis of which an amount of Rs. 6,11,11,643/- was availed as credit. That therefore the credit availed on such ISD documents is ineligible. She submitted that the appellant has obtained ISD registration in 2008 itself. The allegation that appellant had not registered as ISD and had wrongly distributed credit using ISD invoices is incorrect. 6.2 The second issue on which credit has been disallowed to the tune of Rs. 1,00,55,221/- is that the invoices were raised in the addresses of Bangalore and Pune office and that credit was availed in their Hosur Unit. She submitted that ISD registration was taken in their Delhi office. The appellant had also taken centralized registration incorporating their Bangalore and Pune units. That this being so, the credit availed is legal and prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey do not have any nexus with the manufacturing activity. The appellant would be able to establish by document that these services have been consumed in relation to manufacturing activity and that the matter pertaining to this amount may be remanded to the adjudicating authority. 7. Ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan argued the matter on behalf of the Revenue. 7.1 O the first issue, with regard to credit disallowed for the reason that the appellant has not obtained ISD registration, the ld. AR submitted that in the ISD registration certificate, the appellants have mentioned only the address of their New Delhi premises. They did not mention the address of other premises. Though they have obtained centralized registration incorporating the Bangalore and Pune Units, the Input Service Distribution registration does not mention these premises of other units. Further, that the premises at New Delhi which is registered as an input service distributor is only an output service provider. The credit is accumulated by the appellant in the said office and the same is being distributed to the other units which is not permissible in law. Therefore, the credit availed on the ISD invoices is inelig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s obtained ISD registration in 2008. A copy of the ISD registration is also furnished before us. We therefore find that the disallowance of credit for the reason that appellant has not obtained ISD registration is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 9.3 An amount of Rs. 1,00,55,221/- has been disallowed stating the reason that the invoices were raised in the address of Bangalore and Pune office and that credit has been availed in Hosur Unit. The appellant has taken centralized registration incorporating Bangalore and Pune units. In such circumstances, the department cannot deny the credit availed on invoices raised in the address of Bangalore and Pune unit. The case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the appellant on this issue is applicable. 9.4 The other issue for which credit has been denid to the tune of Rs. 3,94,521/- on CHA services are availed outside the factory / place of removal. The definition of input services does not state that the services have to be availed within the factory. In a catena of decisions, the said issue has been settled for e.g. Piramal Health Care and Kennametal India Ltd. The Board Circular has also clarified this....