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

April 2015

[2015] 54 taxmann.com 275 (Bangalore)-Apotex Research (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bangalore.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT Credit- Two adjacent units with common service tax registration – CENVAT credit can be availed irrespective of invoice addressed to head office or to any of the adjacent units.

Facts:
Assessee had two adjacent units under a common service tax registration. They availed service tax credit without considering whether the invoice was addressed to the head office or to units. Department denied credit based on the grounds that Central Excise registrations were different and since there was another sister concern adjacent to the two units, there was also a possibility that input service could have been utilied by the said sister concern unit.

Held:
Tribunal allowing the appeal held that when the service tax registration is common and both the units are located adjacent to each other, insisting that the service tax also should be segregated may not be relevant.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015] 37 STR 655 (Tri-Mumbai) Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency vs. C.C. & C.E., Nagpur.

[2015] 54 taxmann.com 206 (Ahmedabad)- Arvind Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II.