Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 June, 2016
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. The point to be decided in this case is whether the invoices that are issued in the name of Head office are eligible for availment of credit by the factory. The appellant is a manufacturer of Ceramic Fiber Products and are registered with Service tax department. The credit which was held to be ineligible in the present dispute is for the reason that the appellants had availed the credit of excise duty paid by their Head office at Chennai and that they were not registered as Input Service Distributor during the period April 2011 to March 2012. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had also involved themselves in trading activities and the credit to that extent ought not to have been taken. Both sides have made their respective pleas with regard to eligibility or otherwise. I find that this issue is covered in the light of case laws cited by the appellant. From the above case laws, I find that this Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Pricol Ltd. Vs CCE Coimbatore 2015 (38) STR 668 (Tri.-Chennai) is directly on the issue on hand wherein the Tribunal has held that procedural law deserves to be construed as directory instead of mandatory for its application. The relevant paragraphs 7 & 8 of the Tribunal's decision are reproduced as under :-