Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rajasthan Diesel Sales & Service vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 6 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 2902 of 2011-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 427(CB)/ST/JPR-II/2011 dated 15.09.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Rajasthan Diesel Sales & Service Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent,
Jaipur II Appearance:
Ms. Sukriti Das, Adv for the Appellants Shri B B Sharma, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing/ Decision : 6.05.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ 52092 /2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both sides, I find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to Cenvat credit of Rs.398770/- availed by the appellant in respect of services received by their branch office at Kota. It is seen that the appellants is engaged in the sales and services of products of cumin. They are having their head office at Udaipur and are registered with the Service Tax department. They opened another branch office at Kota for undertaking the identical activities. The Kota office received services of repair and maintenance. Inasmuch as the Kota office was not registered with the Service tax department and was not paying service tax and his Service Tax liability in respect of service provided by him was being discharged by head office at Udaipur. This fact is clear from observations made by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Revenue initiated proceedings on the ground that input services of maintenance and repair were received at Kota, invoices were raised in the name of Kota and as such, Udaipur was not entitled to avail the credit. The appellants contention is that since Udaipur was discharging all the service tax liability of Kota branch in respect of output service provided by them, they are entitled to avail the credit. They have also submitted that defect pointed out by Revenue stands rectified subsequently inasmuch as the service provider has replaced the address of Kota branch to address of Udaipur head office.
3. I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the fact that Kota office has received the input services and were entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the same. However, inasmuch as they were not registered with the service tax department for payment of service tax on the output service, which was being discharged by their Udaipur Head office. The credit was actually availed at Udaipur. Revenues objection is that invoices were in the name of Kota stand rectified by the appellant by way of producing a certificate from the service provider clarifying that address may be read as Udaipur head office address.
4. In view of the above, I find no valid reason for denial of credit . Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2