INDIA CEMENTS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TIRUNELVELI
LAWS(CE)-2015-4-44
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 08,2015

INDIA CEMENTS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Tirunelveli Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,BANGALORE -I V. ECOF INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.N.PANDA, MEMBER (J) - (1.)THE appellant situated in Shan -karnagar, Tirunelveli is a manufacturer of cement thereat. It had consumed input service credit of Rs. 13,89,596/ - during the period Jan. 05 and Feb. 05 and Rs. 83,87,222/ - for Mar. 05 to Jul. 05. The credits so consumed were distributed by its Head Office in Chennai and Regional Offices in Tamil Nadu as well as in Kerala. Interpreting the definition under Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Revenue's allegation was that the credit distributed by Head Office is only permissible to the manufacturer/appellant but not the credit distributed by its Regional Offices. Since the term "an office" used in the said Rule which came into force with effect from 10 -9 -2004 does not include a place beyond head office. The period of dispute in the instant case is covered by the above definition. According to the appellant, adjudicating authority without making an allegation in the show cause notice as to confirming the credit distribution by head office only, dealt with that aspect for the first time in adjudication order. Therefore, both on the principle of violation of natural justice as well as on merit, the appeal may be allowed following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore -I v. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in : 2013 (29) S.T.R. 107 (Kar.) : 2012 (277) E.L.T. 317 (Kar.).
(2.)There is clear finding in the case of appellant that its Head Office is registered as ISD. Its Kerala Regional Office was registered under the Finance Act, 1994 under the category of GTA and their Tamil Nadu Regional Office was not so registered.
(3.)ON the other hand, Revenue contends that if credit is distributed by "an office" only and that too the "Head Office" that is permissible to allow Cenvat credit. Learned Commissioner rightly held that whosoever grants credit does not become ISD. Rule 7 along with Rule 2(m) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 being regulatory measure that protects the interests of Revenue preventing abuse of Cenvat credit.
;


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