TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand along with interest and penalties. Since the issue involved in all three appeals is identical, therefore, all appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. Details of the appeals are given herein below in tabular form: Appeal No. E/60064/2017 E/60393/2019 E/61194/2025 Period 01.06.2009 to 31.03.2014 and 01.05.2014 to 31.03.2015 01.04.2015 to 31.12.2015 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2017 Impugned Order OIO: 149- 151/CE/CHD- II/2016 dated 13.10.2016 OIA: LUD-EXCUS001-APP-1995-18 dated 09.01.2019 OIA: CHD- EXCUS-001-LDHAPP-81-2022-23 dated 31.03.2023 Show Cause Notice Date 22.04.2015, 03.06.2015, 22.07.2015 02.05.2016 23.01.2018 Demand Rs.1,96,12,034/- under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Rs.72,63,469/- under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Rs.1,68,31,475/- under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Interest under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11AB/11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11AB/11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. Aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the Appellant have filed the present appeals before us. 3. Heard both sides and perused the material on records. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside as the same have been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. 4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned orders confirming/upholding the demand against the Appellant have been passed on incorrect factual understanding of the issue. She also submits that the impugned orders are issued on the understanding that the service tax on the subject input services was discharged by the Chennai unit, while the services were received by the Appellant at their Mohali unit and further, the Chennai unit discharged the tax as an ISD, and since the said ISD unit did not distribute the Cenvat credit to the Mohali unit as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, the Appellant (Mohali unit) is not eligible to such credit. She further submits that in the impugned orders, there is no dispute that the input services were actually received by the Appellant in their Mohali unit; the invoices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly pertaining to the fact that credit availed on GAR-7 challans issued by the Head Office of the Appellant is not proper; the Appellant ought to have received and paid the tax from its ISD registration and thereupon should have distributed the credit to the Appellant as per the Cenvat Credit Rules. With regard to this issue, she submits that this issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. CGST, Shimla [2025 (5) TMI 56 - CESTAT Chandigarh] wherein the Tribunal has set aside the demand by holding that the Cenvat Credit has rightly been taken by the assessee through the centralised registration. She also submits that w.e.f. 01.04.2005, an assessee had an option to be centrally registered as per Rule 4(2) & Rule 4(3) of the Service Tax Rules, and further, vide Notification No. 29/2006-ST dated 02.11.2006, the scheme of centralised registration was also extended to taxpayers, who are service recipients and are liable to pay service tax under the Act. She also submits that as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, an assessee is entitled to take credit of any input service received by the manufacturer of final product or by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....engaluru-II vs. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. [2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 417 (Kar.)] * Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Pricol Ltd. [2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 235 (Mad.)] * Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 4.5 As regards the invocation of extended period is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the Appellant have not suppressed any material facts from the Department and they have been regularly filing the statutory returns and before the issuance of Show Cause Notice, they also informed the Department vide their letters dated 06.06.2014 & 18.09.2014 about the manner in which the credit was being availed by them on the disputed input services. She further submits that in the present case, the demand has been raised on the basis of the audit and it is a settled position of law that suppression cannot be alleged when the demand is proposed as per the audit. In this regard, she relies on the following case-laws: * M/s Shahabad Co Op Sugar Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Panchkula [2026 (5) TMI 710 - CESTAT Chandigarh] * NHK Spring India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram [2026 (4) TMI 1822 - CES....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the identical issue, has held as under: "7. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The issue involved is in a brief compass. The Head Office of the appellant is centrally registered to receive service and to pay service tax under RCM on GTA Services; the Head Office accordingly paid the service tax in respect of all the branches and distributed the credit to the respective branches; Revenue seeks to deny the CENVAT credit on the ground that the Head Office of the appellant is not registered as an ISD. We find that learned Counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dashion Ltd (supra); and that the Department has accepted the judgment. We find that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat held as follows: 6. The first objection of the Department therefore that the credit from one unit was utilized for the purpose of duty liability of other unit without pro rata distribution by the input service distributor therefore would not survive in view of no previous restriction of this nature flowing from Rule 7 of the Rules of 2004. In fact, the Tribunal has seen entire situation as a Revenue neutral, since as poin....