CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Excise Appeal No. 55150 of 2014 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 74-76/SA/CCE/2014 dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III at Gurgaon]

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ……Appellant Plot No. 36, Sector 7, HSIDC Growth Centre, Bawal, Rewari, Haryana 123501 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & ……Respondent Service Tax, Faridabad GST Bhawan, New CGO Complex, NH 4, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 WITH Excise Appeal No. 55151 of 2014 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 74-76/SA/CCE/2014 dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III at Gurgaon]

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ……Appellant Plot No. 36, Sector 7, HSIDC Growth Centre, Bawal, Rewari, Haryana 123501 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & ……Respondent Service Tax, Faridabad GST Bhawan, New CGO Complex, NH 4, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 AND Excise Appeal No. 55152 of 2014 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 74-76/SA/CCE/2014 dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III at Gurgaon]

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ……Appellant Plot No. 36, Sector 7, HSIDC Growth Centre, Bawal, Rewari, Haryana 123501 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & ……Respondent Service Tax, Faridabad GST Bhawan, New CGO Complex, NH 4, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 APPEARANCE:

Mr. Mehul Jivani, C.A. for the Appellant Mr. Goverdhan Dass Bansal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60114-60116/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 02.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 02.02.2026 P. ANJANI KUMAR :

These three appeals, i.e. E/55150/2014, E/55151/2014 &

E/55152/2014, are filed by the Appellants assailing the impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.06.2014. Since, the issue involved in these appeals is identical, therefore, all three appeals are taken up together for the purpose of discussion and decision.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in manufacture of Paints, Emulsions and Varnishes and are registered with Central Excise Department. During the course of audit of the records of the Appellants by the Accountant General Chandigarh, Haryana, it was noticed that the Appellants have availed CENVAT Credit on input services on account of ‘advertisement agency services’ as distributed by their head-office; however, the Appellants have not booked any expenditure in the books of account of the branch, but have booked in the books of account of the head-office; accordingly, the SCNs dated 21.08.2009, 31.12.2012 & 08.11.2013 covering the period April 2006 to March 2009, December 2011 to August 2012 and October 2012 to September 2013 respectively were issued to the Appellants alleging that the Appellants have violated the Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and other rules and have wrongly availed CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,07,83,328/-. The proposals in the SCNs were confirmed by the impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.06.2014 vide which demand of allegedly wrongfully availed CENVAT Credit was confirmed along with interest and equal penalty.

Hence, the present appeals.

3. Mr. Mehul Jivani, the learned Consultant for the Appellant submits that there is no condition either under Rule 7 or Rule 2(m) or Rule 2(l) that the expenses should be booked in the books of account of the factory. He submits that the CBEC vide Press Note dated

16.08.2004 has clarified as under:

“(iv) Full credit of service tax on services (such as telephone, security, construction, advertising service, market research etc.) which are received in relation to the offices pertaining to a manufacturer or service provider would also be allowed.

(v) In many cases, it so happens that the bill/invoice is raised in the name of head office/regional office etc. This may be the case for services which are actually received in the factory (or factories) or premises of se