PRICOL LTD. Vs. C.C.E.
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-97
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 05,2015

Pricol Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
C.C.E. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SAMBHAJI V. GANGABAI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.N. Panda, J. - (1.)CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,03,90,046/ - taken by the appellant under Rule 2(m) r/w Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 relates to credit allocated to it by its head office as input service distributor by that head office. Apart from this, the other credit of Rs. 4,74,233/ - taken by the appellant is on the basis of xerox copies of invoices. The third credit of Rs. 6,83,349/ - was in respect of CHA service availed.
(2.)APPELLANTS submission is that Rule 2(m) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, allowed the ISD to allocate its credit to its sister units in order to avail the same by them. Regulatory provision for registration of ISD came into force from 7.6.2005 by a set of rules called Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons) Rules, 2005. Prior to that there was no registration provision available for ISDs. Appellant availed the credit allocated to it during the period September 2004 to June 2005.
According to appellant, in absence of registration provision as state above the genuine credit allocated cannot be questioned when availed by the appellant for the taxable service provided by it. So far as the credit taken on xerox copies of invoices is concerned, the appellant does not press the demand but prays for relief from penalty on that account. The third argument is that the services availed from CHA being relatable to the taxable activity of the appellant itself, without being disintegrated, it shall be allowable.

(3.)REVENUE supports the adjudication on the ground that when there was a registration procedure prescribed, the appellant having failed to avail registration should be denied the allocated CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,03,90,046/ -. So far as the credit taken on the xerox copy is concerned, Revenues contention is that no penalty should be waived. On the third count of denial of credit on CHA service submission of learned DR is that the same being rightly disallowed by the learned adjudicating authority giving proper finding, no interference may be made.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.