Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Unichem Laboratories Ltd vs C.C.E., Indore on 4 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 04.02.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/2557/2010 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/122/2010 dated 27.04.2010 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Indore]
Appeal Nos. E/1401 & 1402/2011-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.IND/78 & 79/2011 dated 21.02.2011 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Indore]
M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Indore Respondent
Appearance Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate - for the appellants Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order Nos.50422-50424, dated 04.02.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is inter-connected. In Appeal No.E/2557/2010, the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty on service tax stands denied to the appellants on the sole ground that the invoices stand issued in the name of head office and as their head office was not registered as input service distributor, they were not in a position to avail the credit.
2. However, I find that the appellants were actually registered with the Service Tax Department as input service distributor with effect from 08.02.2005. The period involved in the present appeal is from April, 2005 to February, 2006. Though the appellants placed the said registration certificate before the original adjudicating authority as also before the Commissioner (Appeals), both the authorities have given an amiss to the said certificate and has not examined the same.
3. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for consideration of the said certificate for fresh decision. Ld. Advocate submits that there are small disputes relating to denial of credit of Rs.500/- wherein particulars have not been given in the invoices. The said dispute would also to be looked into afresh by the original adjudicating authorities.
4. The remaining two appeals are against the orders vide which while sanctioning the rebate claim, the same stands appropriated against the confirmed demand in the first case. In as much as the matter is being remanded, the adjustments of rebate claims would depend upon the outcome of the de novo proceedings and the same would be decided accordingly.
5. All the three appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-