Case Law Details
Credit cannot be denied on ground that, documents were not in the name of assessee’s factory but issued in the name of head office situated elsewhere
The documents were not in the name of the assessee’s factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds.
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. II]
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
Commissioner of Customs & C. Ex., VAPI
Versus
DNH Spinners
Final Order No. A/1476/2009-WZB/AHD, dated 10-7-2009 in Appeal No. ST/116/2009
REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.S. Srova, JDR,for the Appellant.
Shri Jitu Motwani, Advocate, for the Respondent.
O R D E R
Being aggrieved with that part of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has held in favour of the assessee, Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri RS. Srova, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Jitu Motwani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
2. For better appreciation I reproduce the relevant para of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) :
“In respect of invoices issued in the name of head office, I find that the Board in para 4 of the Circular No. 211/45/96-CX., dt. 14-5-96 has decided that credit should not be denied where the invoice is in the name of the Registered office/head office provided that the same is endorsed by the Registered office/head office in favour of the appellants. Further the Hon’ble Tribunal has also allowed credit on Bill of Entry issued in the name of head office in the case of Eveready Inds. India Ltd. – 2007 (219) E.L.T. 333 and Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. – 2008 (228) E.L.T. 224. In this case also the impugned invoices have been endorsed by the head office in the name of the appellants and therefore following the ratio of above decisions, I hold the credit taken on invoices in the name of the head office and subsequently endorsed by the head office as correct. I also agree with the submissions of the appellants’ that the appellants being the only manufacturing unit, the head office could not fall in the category of input service distributor. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order to the extent of demand of duty on credit availed on invoices issued in the name of head office along with interest and the equivalent penalty.”
3. The Revenue in their grounds has raised only technical grounds that the documents were not in the name of the assessee’s factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds. I do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.
(Pronounced in Court)
