Case Law Details
CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Rohit Surfactants (P.)Ltd.
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur
FINAL ORDER NOS. 1408-1409 OF 2012-SM & (BR) (PB)
APPEAL NOS. E/999-1000/2010-SM (BR)
OCTOBER 1, 2012
ORDER
Interesting facts are involved in the present appeal. The dispute relates to availment of Cenvat credit in respect of Service Tax paid on the GTA service receipt. The said Service Tax was availed by the appellant during the period January, 2006 to April, 2006 and May, 2006 to January, 2007 on the strength of invoices issued by their Head Office as inputs service distributor.
2. The dispute relates to their head office registration as input service distributor. It is seen that the appellant was initially known as Shri Mahadeo Soap Industries Pvt. Ltd., Alwar and was having their registered office at Kanpur. The Central Service Tax registration in respect of C & F agent services was applied on 2-12-2002 and was issued to their head office on 16-12-2002. Later on, Business auxiliary service was also incorporated under their Central Excise registration on 1-12-2004. Finally, when the goods transport agency service was imposed from 1-1-2005, the appellant made a request for incorporation of the said services in their centralized Service Tax registration vide their letter dated 24-12-2004. The same was also issued on 15-2-2005. Subsequently amalgamation of companies took place and same were known as Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. The appellant again made a request vide their letter dated 19-7-2005 to the Superintendent for transferring the matters to Director General (ST), which was granted to them in their changed name on 26-7-2005. Later on Centralized registration in respect of GTA services was refused vide letter dated 25-5-2006 by the Central Excise Commissioner, Kanpur. However, with effect from 2-11-2006, vide Notification No. 29/2006-S.T. when Service Tax Rules was amended to the effect that now service receiver also had a facility of centralized registration, the appellant requested for inclusion of GTA services in the centralized Service Tax registration certificate was done with effect from letter dated 8-12-2006 by the Deputy Commissioner (ST), Central Excise Kanpur.
3. On the basis of above facts, the appellants jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, entertained a view that during the period 19-7-2005 to 25-5-2006, as their application for inclusion of GTA service in the centralized registration was pending and ultimately rejected on 25-5-2006 and invoices issued by their head office are not proper invoices for availing the Cenvat credit. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated and confirmed against them.
4. Another issue involved, involving Cenvat credit of Rs. 35,722/- relates to the fact as to whether the appellant is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on the freight from their depots to their buyers premises.
5. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri A.P. Mathur learned advocate and Shri Bharat Bhushan, learned DR, I find that first issue denying the Cenvat credit of Rs. 8,33,606/- relates to availment of credit on the basis of invoices issued by their registered office which stands registered as ISD. The revenue’s sole case is that their final application dated 19-7-2005 was disposed of on 25-5-2006 rejecting their request for inclusion of GTA services in the Head Office. The period involved is 18-1-2006 to 25-5-2006, i.e. prior to rejection of the said centralized registration in respect of GTA.
6. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is to be held that final rejection of centralized registration vide letter dated 26-5-2006 cannot be held to be a justifiable reason for denial of the credit. Apart from the fact that during the said period, the application was pending in the office of Deputy Commissioner, without their being any decision taken by him on the same, 1 find that there is otherwise no dispute about the availability of the credit to the appellant. The substantial benefit, if otherwise available, cannot be denied on the technical and procedural grounds. As such, in the absence of any dispute that the appellant was otherwise entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services, so received by them, the denial of the same on the ground that the credit was availed on the basis of invoices raised by their head office is neither justifiable nor warranted.
7. As regards the second issue, I find that the same stand decided by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of appellants own case, vide Final Order No. 953/2011-SM(BR), dated 15-12-2011 wherein it was held that the tax paid on the freight for dutiable transportation of the goods from the depots is also admissible as credit.
8. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.
