SPERRY PLAST LTD. Vs. C.C.E., NOIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is engaged in the manufacture of Thermoplast Rubber Compound Polyamides, HIPS etc. which are subject to excise duty. The appellant has three manufacturing units located at 1121, M.I.E., Bahadurgarh, Haryana; Lane No. 5, EPIP Kartholi, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana Industrial Complex, J & K and D -29, 30, 31 -SIPCOT Footwear Components Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur. The appellant availed cenvat credit on duty paid inputs, capital goods as well as input services. On scrutiny of records of the appellant unit it was found that the appellant unit had availed cenvat credit of input service amounting to Rs. 23,47,826/ - during the period July 2006 to February 2008 on the basis of invoices issued in the name of Head Office of the appellant located at Delhi. The Department was of the view that since the invoices were issued in favour of the Head Office of the company the appellant was not entitled to avail cenvat credit in view of Rule 9(1)(g) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the reason that the Head Office of the assessee was not registered during relevant time as 'Input Service Distributor' in terms of Rule 3(1) of Service Tax Rules, 2005. Accordingly, a show cause notice raising demand was issued invoking extended period of limitation. Show cause notice was ultimately culminated into disallowance of the cenvat credit and confirmation of the duty demand amounting to Rs. 23,47,826/ - with interest and equal amount of penalty. Appellant preferred appeal against the order in original. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order in appeal No. 161/CE/Appeal/Noida/2011 dated 25.7.2011 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order in original.

(2.) IT is against the aforesaid order in appeal the appellant approached the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the appellant has moved a stay application seeking waiver of condition of pre -deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty.

(3.) SHRI Surender Gupta, Advocate relying upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Parekh Plast (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Vapi vide Final Order No. A/1011/2011 -WZB/Ahd in Appeal No. E/1916/2010 dated 15.6.2011 has submitted that the issue is no more res integra for the reason that the Tribunal has settled the issue by holding that denial of credit on sole ground that the invoices were issued in the name of Head Office is not justified inasmuch as the same is curable and procedural defect.