TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.NSK/ EXCUS/000/APPL/431/17-18/899, dt.28.03.2018, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & CE, Nasik. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Rail Bogies/Wagons falling under Chapter 86 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellants availed CENVAT Credit of Rs. 12,79,792/- on various input s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Nasik unit, and the billing was to be in favour of the Nasik unit. Whereas the service provider though rendered the services at their Nasik unit but addressed the invoices mentioning their head office at Pune as the consignee. It is his contention that the input services rendered were exclusively for and use in relation to production of railway bogies/wagons at their Nasik unit. In support, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elsewhere, hence credit ought to be admissible. 4. In support, he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Vs CCE Belapur - 2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom). Further, he has submitted that merely because the invoices are addressed to their head office, credit cannot be denied. In support, he has referred to following judgments. a) Emerson Network....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailed CENVAT Credit on various input services amounting to Rs. 12,79,793/- during the period 2013-2014 against the invoices addressed to their head office. It is the contention of the Appellant that even though in the purchase orders, it is clearly mentioned that the services be rendered at Nasik unit and also the bills be raised in favour of their Nasik unit, but the service provider by mistake ....