2018 (8) TMI 487 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – CENVAT Credit – duty paying documents – case of Revenue is that the appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the basis of the Debit Notes as the DHS–Mumbai cannot be said to have an office or any other premises of DHS- Kolkata and they cannot be considered as an “Input Service Distributor” as it failed to satisfy the definition as provided in Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
–
Held that:- There is no dispute that the DHS- Mumbai had issued the Debit Notes towards the proportionate share in the Subscription Fee paid to Deloitte Global along with Service Tax of the appellant DHS-Kolkata – Tribunal in the case of Amra Raja Power Systems Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupati [2015 (12) TMI 1558 – CESTAT HYDERABAD] held that when Service Tax has been duly discharged by the service provider, service recipient cannot be denied credit of Service Tax borne by him.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in fav
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ndian entities for their portion of their subscription towards the service received from Deloitte Global. 3. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of the Debit Notes issued by them. According to the Revenue, the appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the basis of the Debit Notes as the DHS – Mumbai cannot be said to have an office or any other premises of DHS- Kolkata and they cannot be considered as an Input Service Distributor as it failed to satisfy the definition as provided in Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that there is no dispute that the DHS- Mumbai had issued the Debit Notes towards the proportionate share in the Subscription Fee paid to Deloitte Global along with Service Tax of the appellant DHS- Kolkata. 6. The Tribunal in the case of Amra Raja Power Systems Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupati – 2016 (43) STR 313 (Tri- Hyd.) held that when Service
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
from the appellants including the Service Tax. The sister concerns are thus integrally connected with the appellant factory as they provide the required marketing support in connection with the manufacturing operations. It is therefore clear that the services have a nexus with the appellants manufacturing activities and thus qualify as input services. The credit is sought to be denied alleging that the arrangement is merely sharing of common expenses and not rendering of service. The department cannot blow both hot and cold. When the department has accepted tax on the services provided by sister concerns to appellant, then they cannot deny credit saying that no services were rendered. I find that the demand of credit is unjustified . 7. In view of the above discussion and the ratio of the decision, the impugned Order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Operative part of the Order was pronounced in Court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =