AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n input services among the various field units. During the scrutiny of the records of the appellant for the period March, 2013 to September, 2013 it was felt that the appellant had irregularly availed CENVAT Credit. On being pointed out, the appellant had debited an amount of Rs. 6,21,106/- but not the interest or penalty related to the same. They had also availed service tax on invoices/ISD challans for the period April, 2010 to September, 2014 amounting to Rs. 38,82,278/- on various input services such as insurance services for all group companies, surveying services, fabrication service, civil construction related services, apoxy flooring/ wall coating service, painting service, repairs and maintenance service, travelling service, pest c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1944. 3. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority who reduced the penalty to Rs. 18,99,858/- but otherwise upheld the order of the lower authority. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant takes the bench through the records of the case and submits that the credit in question was taken on ISD invoices issued by their Head office as can be seen from Para 12 of the show cause notice itself. The appellant was merely recipient of ISD invoices from the Head office and they were not the ones who took credit on the input services themselves. In other words, they were transferred this credit by their Head office through ISD invoices. Therefore, if the credit, if any, was wrongly availed, it was by their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here other than in relation to the above activities of the manufacturer. The said services used at their head office have also to be considered to be integrally connected with the manufacture of goods by the appellant and credit allowed. The details of the documents relating to the impugned input services submitted by the appellants during the instant proceedings and also during the earlier proceedings and my observations thereon are tabulated hereunder while determining the admissibility of each of the input service." 5. He would further draw the attention of the bench to Para 9(II)(xi) of this order in which it was held that in respect of other services on which the credit was denied in the impugned order, the appellant have not substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry and security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal. The services in question do not met this requirement and in the absence of any nexus the appellant is not entitled to CENVAT credit and therefore the same is recoverable along with interest and penalties are imposable. On the question of ISD being put to notice instead of the appellant who is recipient of the ISD invoices, he would submit that recovery o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t." Thus, the word manufacture is defined through an inclusive definition in the Central Excise Act, 1944. In other words, the term manufacture includes everything which is related to the manufacture. Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 expanded this definition for the purpose of CENVAT credit with expression "in or in relation to manufacture". Thus, many activities which are not normally considered as manufacture will also get covered in the definition of manufacture as per Central Excise Act, 1944 if such activities are not incidental or ancillary to manufacture. Even if they are not incidental or ancillary to manufacture they may still get covered as "in relation to manufacture". Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, further enlarges this definition by including s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he recipient of the ISD invoices be able to correct the mistake? In my considered view, they will not be able to do so. They will also not be able to explain why the credit was wrongly taken or distributed by their head office. Such a view has already been taken by this bench in the case of Piyush Chemicals Pvt Ltd (supra). I have considered the arguments by learned departmental representative and the case laws relied upon by him to assert that recovery under Rule 14 can be made only from the recipient of the ISD invoices. Even if this argument is accepted, no malafide such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts can be attributed to the field office. Once they have accepted the ISD invoices issued by their head off....