2026 (8) TMI 916

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was issued demanding Rs.1,46,401/-. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the Head Office of the Appellant was not registered as ISD. Therefore, the Appellant has taken the credit based on the documents which are not specified as proper eligible document under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After due process, the lower authorities have confirmed the demand. 2. The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that during the period under dispute there was no provision to state that the input service has to be distributed only on proportionate basis. In this case the Appellant has taken the Cenvat Credit based on the invoices which have been issued by the Telecom providers in the name and address of the Head Office. He r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....istributor and respondent have more than one units, proceedings were initiated which culminated into confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty by the original adjudicating authority. On an appeal filed by the respondents, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal relying upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Photo Limited - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 728 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 2009 (14) S.T.R. 812 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 427 (Raj.). .............................. 3. I have considered the submissions. I find that the decision in the case of Jindal Photo Limited was rendered in exactly similar circumstances. In that case also the registration was not taken by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the rules, the rules have to be got amended but certainly the submissions like this not called for. In view of the fact that the ratio is covered by the decision of this Tribunal and I do not find anything wrong with the decision of the Commissioner in following the same and I also find the submission that why this decision is not applicable are not at all correct, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly reject the same." 7. In the case of Doshion Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, cited supra, the Bench has held as under :- "5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The registered office and....