Case Law Details
Pricol Ltd Vs Commissioner of Cemtral Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that input service credit when distributed by the Input Services Distributor (ISD), cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR 2004.
Facts- M/s. Pricol Limited, Plant-III, the appellant is a registered manufacturer of Oil Pumps and its assemblies falling under Chapter 84 and they were availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and tax paid on input services and utilizing the same for payment of duty on their finished product clearances.
The appeal was filed against OIO passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise confirming the demand of recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat Credit of an amount of Rs.3,95,16,449/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) read with Section 11 A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA, 1944) along with applicable interest and imposing a penalty equal to the demand of duty under Rule 15 (2) of the said Rules.
M/s. Pricol Limited had its head office in Coimbatore and it was registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) under the service tax law. They were availing credit in respect of various input services availed by them and were transferring the said credit to their manufacturing units including Plant-III, the appellant herein.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
