HANUMAN CHROMOCOATES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of appellant it was argued that when the appellant's head office is in Calcutta and factory is situated in Boregoan Industrial Area, Distt. Chhindwara of Madhya Pradesh the invoices showing payment of service tax either in the name of head office or in the name of factory should be considered for grant of input credit.

(2.) He drew attention to certain insurance premium paid as per copies of document available at pages 36 and 55 of the appeal folder and security charges paid as per copy of document available at page 66 of the order to submit that these documents specify name of the factory for which cenvat credit should be allowed. His further submission is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of his order dated 23 -2 -2011 in appeal No. 39/BPL/2011 & 40/BPL/2011 has observed that there was only one head office but the documents not being in the name of unit it was held that the appellant shall not be entitled to the cenvat credit of the input services. He relies on the decision in the case of C.C.E., Vapi v. DNH Spinners reported in : 2009 (244) E.L.T. 65 (Tri. -Ahmd.) to buttress the claim. Ld. DR on the other hand says Cenvat credit cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Requirement of law is to be fulfilled both under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons) Rules, 2005 to claim the benefit adducing evidence and satisfying the authorities in respect of eligibility and admissibility of the claim. According to Revenue there may not be denial of input credit service if a service distributor is known to law in terms of Rule 2(m) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. But such service distributors are required to be registered so that appropriate credit can be passed on by them to the beneficiary subject to scrutiny by Revenue. In the present case there is no finding by the authority as to whether the head office is a real service distributor and the factory of the appellant in Madhya Pradesh is beneficiary. Giving go bye to the Rules of 2005, the authority decided appeal of the appellant in its favour by order dated 23 -2 -2011. Whether one office is registered or not needs scrutiny. Admissibility of the claim was not scrutinised in Adjudication. He exemplifies that the telephone bills whether are attributable to the manufacturer needs scrutiny.

(3.) HEARD both sides and perused the record.