TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... final hearing. Considering the same, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. The issue in the present appeal is regarding denial of cenvat credit of service tax availed on the strength of Input Service Distributor bill issued by the Head Office of the appellant. The appellant had availed service tax credit on various services on the strength of the Input Service Distributor bill issued by M/s. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. Alleging that the said bill did not contain the requisite particulars as required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, show-cause notice was issued and adjudication authority as per the Order-in- Original dated 30.06.2009 held that irregular Cenvat credit availed by the appellant is recoverable from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ially numbered and shall contain the following details: i. The name, address and registration number of the person providing input services and the serial number and date of invoice, bill, or as the case may be, challan issued under sub-rule(1); ii. the name and address of the input service distributor; iii. the name and address of the recipient of the credit distributed; iv. the amount of the credit distributed 4. The learned counsel draws my attention to the invoice produced by them and also the counterfoil of the challan dated 27.12.2007 and submits that the relevant particulars are available on the challan/invoice produced by them. To substantiate the above, the learned counsel draws my attention t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y attention to the form ST-2 issued by respondent Delhi office where it is clearly stated that they have registered with Service Tax authority on 21.03.2005 and a request was made for adding Intellectual Property, Business Auxiliary Service, Goods Transport Agency and Input Service Distributor vide request dated 12.04.2006 and it was approved and added to the original bill on 27.04.2006. Further as per the endorsement made by the Superintendent CGO Complex, New Delhi, it is endorsed that as per the request dated 06.09.2006, name of the firm was changed to M/s. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) and subsequently fresh ST-2 certificate was issued on 09.09.2008. Thus Head Office of the appellant was registered since 21.03.2005 and not on 09.09.2008 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Office was considered as not fatal so as to deny credit. In Pipava Shipyard Ltd. V. CCE & ST., Bangalore, the non-mention of name ISD was held to be not sufficient ground to deny credit." 6. The learned AR reiterated the findings given by the adjudication authority and submits that the adjudication/ appellate authority rightly rejected the claim since the documents submitted by the appellant is not as per the provisions of law. 7. Heard both sides, as per Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor as the case may be on the basis of any of the documents viz. (e) & (f). In appellant's case they have produced challan evidencing pa....