2024 (8) TMI 715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Trichy Central Excise Commissionerate in February 2012, it was noticed that the appellant had taken CENVAT credit of service tax of Rs.1,46,546/- based on nine invoices raised during the period August 2010 to August 2011, in the name of their Head Office located at Chennai and that the payment for the services had been made by their Head Office. It was found that the invoices did not contain the name and address of the appellant's unit at Kattur. It was also found that the Head Office had not obtained service tax registration as an Input Service Distributor. Based on the audit, Show Cause Notice dated 13.5.2013 was issued to the appellant proposing to recover the credit of Rs.1,45,516/- under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules r/w sec.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he credit was availed were in the name of Head office and that the head office is not registered as ISD. b. The Head Office had applied for a registration as an ISD on 07.01.2010 and the registration certificate was also issued. OIO has accepted the same. c. The Appellant relies upon the following decisions: • Rajender Kumar & Associates (2021) 45 GSTL 184 • Kemwell Biopharma Pvt Ltd (2017) 47 STR 70 • Anand Nishikawa co ltd ( 2014) 34 STR 751 • Hindustan Zinc Ltd (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 346 d. As per proviso to Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if a document contains particulars such as duty element description of goods, taxable service assessable v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay be upheld. 4. I have carefully gone through the appeal and have heard the rival parties. The dispute pertains to the appellant availing CENVAT Credit based on invoices addressed to the units Head Office. I find that the Adjudicating Authority vide Order in Original dated 30.09.2013 after relying on the decisions of Tribunals in the case of CCE Vs. Jindal Photo Ltd (2009) 14 STR 812 and Precision Wires India Ltd Vs. CCE (2013) 31 STR 62, held that since there is no allegation that the services had not suffered service tax or that the services were not received at the Kattur plant, the only issue was that the invoice was raised in the name of the Head Office, which cannot be the sole ground to deny credit. The appellant has also pointed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uivalent to cash inflows and are the life blood of any business, merely on technical ground would be a very harsh measure. Further I also accept the claim of the appellant that the SCN was time-barred. There is nothing to show that the credits were not reflected in the monthly returns filed by the assessee or that there was a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty. 6. A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had examined the activities of the Head Office as an ISD and noted as under in Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd vs Raigad, [2015-TIOL-2510-CESTAT-MUM]. "5. . . . Input service distributor is not a dealer or trader in services i.e. he does not buy and sell the services. Input service distributor receives the services for his own co....