AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner has confirmed the demand of Rs.4,24,11,327 under Rule 14 of the Credit Rules read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and also imposed equal penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of batteries for automobiles and other products falling under Chapter 86 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; it has five regional offices (2 in Kolkata, 1 each in Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai) which are registered as Input Service Distributor ('ISD). Further, there are eight manufacturing units of Exide. One of the manufacturing units of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recedents. 4.1 She further submits that the credit distributed to the appellant is in accordance with Rule 7 of the Credit Rules as prevailing during the relevant period. She further submits that with effect from 01.04.2012, Rule 7 of the Credit Rules provided that 'ISD may distribute Cenvat credit paid on input services to its manufacturing unit or units providing output service subject to the four conditions provided therein'. She further submits that with effect from 01.04.2016, Rule 7 was substituted to say that ISD shall distribute the Cenvat credit paid on input services to its manufacturing unit or units providing output service or an outsourced manufacturing unit subject to the seven conditions provided therein. 4.2 She furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has been consistently held in the decisions (cited supra) that other conditions under Rule 7 were not mandatory during the relevant period and therefore, denying the credit based on violation of Rule 7 deserves to be set aside. She further submits that in the present case the ISDs have distributed the credit amongst its manufacturing units based on the turnover of the units, which is evident from the CA certificates enclosed by the appellant. 4.4 She further submits that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra as the same has been decided in favour of the appellant in its own case for the previous as well as subsequent period. She further submits that the appellate authority considered the CA certificates certifyi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-l v. M/S Brillion Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd., 2024 (10) TMI 6-CESTAT Chandigarh * Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Durgapur v. M/S Durgapur Steel Plant, 2025 (3) TMI 428-CESTAT Kolkata * M/S. Castrol India Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI, 2024 (6) TMI 761-CESTAT Kolkata, followed in its own case in 2024 (12) TMI 466-CESTAT Kolkata. 4.7 As regards the demand of interest and penalty, the learned Counsel submits that when the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of interest and penalty does not arise. 5. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that during th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit paid on input services to its manufacturing unit or units providing output services subject to four conditions provided therein. We also find that w.e.f. 01.04.2016, Rule 7 was amended and it was made mandatory by the use of the word shall that ISD will distribute the Credit of input services to its manufacturing unit after fulfilling 7 conditions provided therein. We also note that the period involved in the present case is from May, 2013 to October, 2015 and during that time conditions provided under Rule, 7 for distribution of credit were discretionary and not mandatory. Further, we find that in the present case, the appellant has produced the CA certificate which certifies the details of distribution of credit to the appellant's uni....