Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Caress Beauty Care Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 4 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/41879/2015
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.157/2015 (CXA-II) dt. 26.6.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai ]
Caress Beauty Care Products Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai-IV Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, Consultant For the Appellant Shri Jude Joseph, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of hearing/decision : 04.11.2016 FINAL ORDER No.42240/2016 Issue in appeal relates to denial of cenvat credit amounting to Rs.91,738/- on the grounds that bills, invoices were addressed to the factory premises of the appellant and that the same is not in order as per Rule 7, Rule 9 or Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The order of lower authority confirming the demand was upheld in appeal by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.
2. Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, Ld. Consultant on behalf of appellant submits that, in the first place, they have only one manufacturing unit at Kancheepuram, for which head office is located at Adyar, Chennai. The disputed credit amounts predominantly are related to telephone, and mobile charges and the balance related to courier service and maintenance charges, security service etc. He submits that all these services, though invoiced in the name of head office address, had actually been availed by their manufacturing unit. He also points out that non-registration as Input Service Distributor (ISD) by appellant is only a procedural lapse and substantive benefit should not be denied to them on that account.
3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides and gone through the facts. Show cause notice at pages 34, 35 of the appeal does not dispute the eligibility of the concerned impugned services, but only proposed to deny the credit on the ground that the invoices raised on the head office were without ISD Registration. This Tribunal has been consistently taking a view that non-registration as ISD is only a procedural lapse and curable defect, for example :-
(1) Final Order No.40881 to 40883/2016 dt. 3.6.2016 in the case of Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai-III.
(2) Pricol Ltd. Vs CCE Coimbatore -
2015 (38) STR 668 (Che.).
5. I also note that appellant has only one manufacturing unit. Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules laying down the proceduralities of availment of credit by ISD contains the provisions for distribution of credit by ISD to its manufacturing units or outsourced manufacturing units subject to conditions laid down therein. The said rule therefore presupposes the existence of more than one unit against which such credit has to be distributed. However, in the appellants case, there is only one manufacturing unit and there should not be any dispute whether or not the impugned credits are fully attributable to such unit or otherwise. In the event, I am of the considered opinion that appellant cannot be denied input service credit of Rs.91,738/-. Hence the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) gs 3