Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Granules India Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeals(s) Involved: E/2283/2012-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2012 (H-IV) CE dated 27.4.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, (Appeals-II), Hyderabad.] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities? Yes M/s. Granules India Limited PLOT NO.15A/1, PHASE-III, IDA, JEEDIMETLA, HYDERABAD. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-IV COMMISSIONERATE POSMETT BHAVAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTE, HYDERABAD. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None (written submissions) For the Appellant Mr. K.T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 07/07/2015 Date of Decision: 28/07/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No: 21702/2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs falling under the Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They were availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty-paid on the basis of invoices issued by their Head Office which was registered as Input Service Distributor (ISD).
2. As per the audit conducted in the appellants factory, a view was taken that inasmuch as the appellant has availed the credit on the basis of the debit notes amounting to Rs.4,44,450/- and inasmuch as the service tax was taken on the basis of the invoices addressed to the other unit of the ISD to the extent of Rs.7,80,230/, they are not entitled to avail the credit. The appellant accepted the above stand of the audit party and debited the amount in their RG-23A Part-II vide Entry dated 10.3.2010.
2.1 Thereafter, they realized that the credit was available on the basis of the debit notes, as held by various decisions of the Tribunal and the credit pertaining to their other two units was also available to them, irrespective of the fact whether they have received the services or not, they applied for the refund of Rs.12,37,384/-. Show-cause notice dated 7.6.2011 was issued to them proposing to reject the claim. The same stands rejected by the original adjudicating authority as also by Commissioner (A).
Hence the present appeal.
3. After hearing both sides, I find that the credit to the extent of Rs.4,44,450/- availed by the appellant on the basis of the invoices issued by their ISD stands denied on the ground that the same was availed by ISD on the basis of debit notes. I find that the issue is no more res integra and stand settled by the various decisions of the Tribunal laying down that as long as such debit notes issued by the service provider contain all the details of service tax paid, description of the goods along with value and registration number, the credit can be availed on the basis of such debit notes. Reference can be made to Tribunals decision in the case of Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad: 2009 (16) S.T.R. 94 (Tri.-Ahmd.) as also to another decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.: 2011 (24) S.T.R. 691 (Tri.-Del.). To the same effect, all other decisions of the Tribunal and there is no purpose of referring to all of them inasmuch as the issue stands decided. As such by following the said decision, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs.4,44,450/-.
3.1 As regards the credit of Rs.7,80,230/-, the same stand denied on the ground that invoices issued by the Head Office were in the name of other units. The appellant has not denied that the invoices of the ISD were not in the name of their own unit but submits that they have taken the credit inasmuch as the ISD is empowered to distribute the credit to any of the unit irrespective of the fact that whether the services availed related to the same unit or not. I find that the said issue also stands decided by various decisions. Reference can be made to the Honble Karnataka High Courts decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd.: 2011 (23) S.T.R. 337 (Kar.). Though the Head office is registered as Input Service Distributor was within its powers to distribute the credit to any of the units but the invoice issued by them, according to me should be in the name of the unit who is availing the credit. If the said invoices are in the name of other unit, there is every chance that the other unit might have also availed the credit of the same, thus leading to availment of double credit. As such, the fact that whether the other units in whose names the invoices are have also taken the credit or not is required to be verified. The appellant has also not offered any explanation as to why they have taken the credit on the basis of the invoices issued in the name of other units. If they are able to establish that the credit is taken by them only and has not been availed by other unit, they would be entitled for the same, subject to rectification of invoices and the consequent refund of the debited credit. For the said purpose, the matter is being remanded to the original adjudicating authority.
In a nutshell, appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded.
(Order pronounced in open court on 28/07/2015.) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 4