2018 (9) TMI 1050

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tis falling under Chapter Sub- Heading No. 32082090 & 32141000 of CETA, 1985. It appeared to the Department that the assessee was wrongly availing input service credit distributed by M/s. MRF Ltd. - Speciality Coatings Division, and utilized the same for discharging the duty liability on final products. The assessee being manufacturer of paints, also undertakes manufacture on job work. M/s. MRF Ltd. having engaged the assessee for such job work, it also distributed the input credit, to be availed by the assessee. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 03/2011 dated 05.08.2011 observed that the assessee and M/s. MRF Ltd. being separate legal entities, the ISD invoice of M/s. MRF Ltd. could not empower M/s. MRF to distribute it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion, especially when the entire fact was within the knowledge of the Department, no suppression of facts could be alleged. 1.3 On merits, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the Revenue had not disputed the fact that the services in dispute were all eligible services for which the credit could have been taken on the basis of ISD invoices, which is only a technical flaw and which, according to him, should not be the reasons for denying the substantive benefits. Seriously aggrieved by the above findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is in Appeal. 2. It is the case of the Ld. Department Representative, Shri A. Cletus appearing for the Revenue, that primarily M/s. MRF Ltd. had no right to distribute ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thereon; or ...." 5.2 We find that the Ld. DR is correct is his contention that the definition of 'input service distributor' cannot include M/s. MRF Ltd. or its factory premises as per the definition under Rule 2(m) of the CCR, 2004. We also find that the producer or the manufacturer of final product, as correctly contended by the Revenue, is the assessee. It is also not the case that the assessee is a unit or branch of M/s. MRF Ltd. 5.3 On merits, therefore, we do not see any valid reasons to sustain the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5.4 On the question of invoking extended period of limitation, we find strength in the observations of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for the detailed reasons given at Items (e) and (f)....