75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

September 2015

[2015] 59 taxmann.com 321 (Mumbai – CESTAT) CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH-Inox Air Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit cannot be denied just because invoices are in the name
of Head Office/ another unit not registered as Input Service Distributor
(ISD).

Facts:
The assessee was engaged in the
manufacture of natural gases having units at various places. Assessee’s
one unit took credit of Customs House Agent (CHA) services where invoice
was in the name of Head Office; and also of machine repair services
where invoice was in name of another Unit. The demand of duty was raised
because the invoices under which the credit was availed were in name of
Head Office/other units and assessee was not registered as Input
Service Distributor.

Held:
Tribunal held that since
assessee had nine units manufacturing the same product, the doubt of
nexus of input and output products would never arise. It is quite
natural that the service provided by a CHA would be in the name of the
Head Office as the clearance of goods through customs is centralized.
The only basis for denying credit has been that invoices are either in
the name of another unit of the appellant or in the name of their Head
Office. Since doubt has never been raised regarding actual receipt of
services, credit cannot be denied.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015 (39) STR 210 (Tri.-Mumbai) Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I vs. N.V. Advisory Pvt. Ltd

[2015] 59 taxmann.com 128 (New Delhi – CESTAT) Uniworth Ltd vs. CCEST