M/S Spetech Plant Equipment Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise &

(Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CCEA-SRT-I/SSP-308/2012-13/U/S-35-A Dated 06.02.2013 Passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise-Surat-I)

M/s Spetech Plant Equipment Pvt Ltd : Appellant (s) VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Suart-I : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri. Jigar Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri. S. Shukla, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

1

Whether Press Reporter 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 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

CORAM :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 27.07.2015

ORDER No. A/11155/2015 Dated 27.07.2015

Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. CCEASRTI/SSP308/2012-13 DATED 06.02.2013 passed by Commr (A) Surat as first appellant authority. The issue involved in this appeal is whether appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the basis of invoices/bills issued by their Head office which is not registered as Input Service Distributor (ISD) at the time of issuing such bills.

2. Shri. Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant made the bench go through the facts of the case narrated in Para  2 of OIA dated 06.02.2013. It was his case that not taking of ISD registration is a mear procedural irregularly and has to be ignored in view of the following case Laws:-

(i) Doshion Ltd vs. CCE Ahmedabad [2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri. Ahmedabad)]

(ii) Alarsin vs. CCE Mumbai  I [2015 TIOL 766  CESTAT  Mumbai)]

3. Shri s. Shukla (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the first appellate authority and argued that Cenvat Credit is admissible if only proscribed procedures are followed by the appellant. That non fulfilling of the prescribed procedures disentitle Cenvat Credit to the appellant.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved is regarding admissibility of Cenvat Credit on invoices/bills issued by the appellants Head office without being registered as ISD. In view of the order dated 31.10.2012 of this bench, in the case of Doshion Ltd vs. CCE Ahmedabad, such procedural lapses need to be ignored Following observations were given by the bench in this case while allowing such credit:-

5.?We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The registered office and Vatva office both are located in the same place and appellant has simply utilised the credit at Vatva instead of distributing it to various units. As submitted by the learned counsel, during the relevant period, there was no restriction for utilisation of such credit without allocating proportionately to various units. The omission to take registration as an Input Service Distributor can at best be considered as procedural irregularity and in view of the decisions cited, has to be considered sympathetically. Further, it is also noticed that appellant has not got any extra benefit by doing this. In fact from the statement of Shri Chandresh C. Shah, as explained that above Cenvat credit available to them, 20% of service tax payable only was paid and balance was paid in cash. In fact, proper distribution would have enabled them to utilise full credit. It would show that the exercise is totally Revenue neutral and no loss has been caused to the Revenue (infact Revenue has gained). In the absence of any legal requirement to avail credit based on the services received during the relevant time and in the light of the decision cited by the learned counsel, the procedural irregularity has to be ignored and the demand confirmed has to be set-aside on this ground. In the result, demand for Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,07,07,142/- with interest and penalty equal to the same imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 are set-aside.

5. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by this bench, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed as facts involved in this appeal are similar to the facts involved in case of Doshion Ltd vs. CCE Ahmedabad (Supra).

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) VM

1