Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Broadway Overseas Ltd vs Cce, Jalandhar on 29 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Court-I
Appeal No.E/53462/2015
[Arising out of the OIA No.JAL-EXCUS-000-APP-197-14-15 dt.7.8.2014 passed by the CCE(Appeals), Chandigarh)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 29.08.2016
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, 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 their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Broadway Overseas Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jalandhar Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Harvinder Singh, AR Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO.: 61275/2016 PER: ASHOK JINDAL Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
2. The case of the Revenue is that the head office is not registered with the Central Excise department as input service distributor, therefore, the credit cannot be distributed. In a similar set of facts in the case of Samita Conductors Ltd.-2012 (278) ELT 492 (Tri.Ahmd.), this Tribunal has observed as under:-
3.?I have considered the submissions. I find that the decision in the case of Jindal Photo Limited was rendered in exactly similar circumstances. In that case also the registration was not taken by the head office as input service distributor. Further, I am unable to appreciate the stand taken by the Revenue that this decision is not applicable in view of the judgment in the case of Jindal Photo Limited deals with modvat/cenvat credit of goods and in this case the question involved is services. This itself is a wrong submission since in Jindal Photo Limited case also the ratio involved was cenvat credit on input services only. Further, it has also been submitted that receipt of goods is verifiable but not the services. In this connection it would be worthwhile to see the provisions to provisos of sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. According to the said proviso, if the invoices do not contain all the particulars but contains certain details specified therein, the Assistant Commissioner can allow the credit on the basis of such defective documents, if the goods or services covered by such documents, have been received and accounted for in the books of accounts of the receiver. The submissions made by the appellant in this case is contrary to the provisions of law which require the Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner to verify whether input services have been received or not. This amounts to a submission that while formulating the Rules, the Government did not consider the practicability or otherwise of verification of receipt of input services. It is the duty of the executives to implement the provisions of rules and if there is any problem in implementing the rules, the rules have to be got amended but certainly the submissions like this not called for. In view of the fact that the ratio is covered by the decision of this Tribunal and I do not find anything wrong with the decision of the Commissioner in following the same and I also find the submission that why this decision is not applicable are not at all correct, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly reject the same.
3. As observed by this Tribunal, in such situation, the credit cannot be denied, therefore, I hold that in this case, the appellant has taken the credit righty. Consequently, the impugned order deserves no merits, accordingly the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(dictated and pronounced in the court) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mk 1