2020 (4) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant for the period January, 2016 to September, 2016. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a manufacturing company having its factory located at Village 'Keshwana - Rajput', in the district of Jaipur, Rajasthan. Their Head Office is located at Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. They are engaged in the manufacture of synthetic rubber, plastic sheets, UPVC door and window etc., which are dutiable. In the course of internal audit of the records by the officers of audit team, it was observed that the appellant have obtained service tax registration, ST-3 certificate on 19.01.2014 for its factory, which was subsequently amended by amended certificate under the same registration number dated 17.12.2015, wherein the Head Of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Rajasthan. Further, observed that as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, cenvat credit is allowable at the factory provided that the services have been received and used by the appellant at the factory for manufacture of final product or output service. Further, the appellant could not prove that the service was not received and used by the appellant at factory in Rajasthan. Further, they have also not submitted evidence that they have not taken cenvat credit twice, i.e. Head Office at Delhi and also at factory. Thus, the distribution of cenvat credit by Head office to the factory without obtaining registration as ISD is improper. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that admittedly the GTA service and the manpower service have been rec....