Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Transpek Silox Industry Ltd vs C.C.E.& Cus., Vadodara on 13 February, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.11416 of 2013-SM Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.SRP/494/VDR-I/2013 dated 27.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, & Customs, Vadodara. Transpek Silox Industry Ltd .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E.& Cus., Vadodara .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri H.D. Advocate with Shri H. Ganguly, Advocate for the appellants Present Shri S.N. Gohil, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 13.2.2017 Final Order No.a.10394/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
This is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal No. SRP/494/VDR-I/2013 dated 27.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, & Customs, Vadodara.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit of Rs.3,91,683 /-, for the period from January 2010 to October 2010 at their factory, on various services viz. Advertizing Services, Consulting Engineers Services, Chartered Accountant Services, Management Consultant Services, Online information & data base, Maintenance & Repair Services received at their Head Office, in relation to their business activity. Alleging that the service tax paid on services received at their Head office, not registered as Input Service Distributor (ISD), are not admissible to CENVAT credit at their factory premises, a demand notice was issued to them for recovery of the said credit along with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in turn, upheld the Order and rejected their appeal. Hence, the present Appeal.
3. Ld. Advocate Shri H.D.Dave, Advocate assisted by Shri H. Gunguly, Advocate submits that CENVAT credit availed on the service tax paid on these services viz. Advertizing Services, Consulting Engineers Services, Chartered Accountant Services etc are held to be input service under various judgments of the High Courts and Tribunal. It is his contention that the issue that the head office not registered as an ISD and the admissibility of CENVAT credit is covered by the decision of the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Dashion Limited reported - 2016 (41) STR 884 (Guj.).
4. Ld. A.R. for Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I find that the only issue needs to be addressed is: whether the appellants are eligible to avail credit at their factory, when the entire input services have been received and utilized for their business activity at their head office which was not registered as ISD. The issue is no more res integra and settled by the Honble High Court at Gujarat in Dashion Limited (supra)s case laying down the principle that non-registration of the head office as an input service distributor cannot be a factor for denying the credit at the factory. The Honble High Court at Para 7 of the judgment observed as under:
7.?The second objection of the Revenue as noted was with respect of non-registration of the unit as input service distributor. It is true that the Government had framed Rules of 2005 for registration of input service distributors, who would have to make application to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in terms of Rule 3 thereof. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 further required any provider of taxable service whose aggregate value of taxable service exceeds certain limit to make an application for registration within the time prescribed. However, there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons disentitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted. It was in this background that the Tribunal viewed the requirement as curable. Particularly when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty. Question No. 1 therefore shall have to be answered in favour of the respondent and against the assessee.
6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant as per law.
(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial scd/ Appeal No.E/11416/2013-SM 1