Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Dayalal Meghji And Company
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 58036 of 2013 - Ex (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where service tax has been paid on services actually received and consumed by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit notwithstanding that the invoice is issued in the name of its head office rather than in the assessee's own name.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 79/RPR-I/2013 dated 19.3.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals I), Raipur (CG)]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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?
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants
& ST, Raipur
Vs.
M/s. Dayalal Meghji And Company Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Appellants
Shri A K Mishra, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 01.1.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 50034 /2015-Ex(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that when there is no dispute that services have been received by the respondent and service tax thereon has been paid, therefore, respondent is entitled to take Cenvat credit. The mere ground for denial of Cenvat credit is that invoice is not in the name of the respondents but it is in the name of respondents head office.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Considering the fact that there is no dispute that services have been received by the respondent and service tax has been duly paid, the only reason for denial of Cenvat credit by the Revenue is that invoices are not in the name of respondents but in the name of respondents head office.
4. When there is no dispute regarding consumption of services by the respondents and service tax has been paid duly their on, therefore, I hold that respondents are entitled to take Cenvat credit although the invoice is in the name of head office. Moreover, it is not disputed that apart from the respondent, somebody else has also taken the credit on these invoices. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free