Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hindustan Zinc Limited vs Commissioner, Customs & Central ... on 30 March, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066. BENCH-,,,,,SM Excise Stay Application No.E/Stay/3414/2011-SM in Excise Appeal No.E/2622/11-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.159(CB)CE/JPR-II/2011 dated 26.08.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur-II]. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited Appellant Vs. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.R.K. Hasija, Advocate Present for the Respondent:Shri.Bharat Bhushan, SDR Coram: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing/Decision:30.03.2012 ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:________ PER: D.N.PANDA Ld. Counsel submits that identity of the head office and its smelter unit Debari in Udaipur of Rajasthan is established on record. Because certain invoices in respect of services received were in the name of head office and head office distributed the credit without being a registered service distributor allowed its units to enjoy the cenvat credit, such credit was denied. At the initial stage there were difficulties in following procedure of input service distributor. Neither genuinety of the service availed nor identity of service provider is in question. When service was availed by the smelter unit of the head office, there cannot be any doubt or suspicion except Revenue needing protection that double claim of the same credit is not made elsewhere. He prays to dispose stay application as well as appeal.
2. Revenue also agrees for such disposal and submits that when there is a codified procedure prescribed in respect of input credit distribution that should have been followed.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. Pre-deposit is waived and appeal is disposed by this common order.
5. Identity of the head office and Smelter unit remained unquestioned. So also the service received by the Debari Smelter unit under invoices showing the head office address remained unquestioned. Only because the invoices carry name of the head office, denial of cenvat credit shall defeat the object of avoiding cascading affect. No doubt, input service distribution scheme was introduced to enable central agencies to distribute credit available to its units under certain procedures. But at the initial stage of implementation of law, difficulties were experienced because of the Registration procedure and certain technical procedures involved. When the identity of service recipient and provider as well as genuinety of transaction is not in doubt there may not be difficulty to allow cenvat credit of Rs.2,88,062/-. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita