9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stle', 70, Sampatrao Colony, Opposite Masonic Hall, Productivity Road, Vadodara. The appellant had taken CENVAT Credit of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 3,23,392/- paid on hiring charges of a premises taken by them on rent at 4th Floor, Darpan Apartment, R. C. Dutt Road, Vadodara used by them as 'Document Retention Centre' for storage of a large number of documents pertaining to their Stock Broker Business. This hired premises was neither registered with the Service Tax Department nor used to render any output service directly. The rent receipt did not bear address of the hired premises. The appellant also availed CENVAT Credit of Rs. 3,74,556/- on input services used at unregistered premises (facilitating centers) at Junagarh, Jamnagar and V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or which substantive benefit should not be denied. He cited the following case laws in this regard: (i) Lupin Limited vs. CCE, Thane-II - [2007-TIOL-1710-CESTAT-MUM]; (ii) Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur - [2008-TIOL-1935-CESTAT-MUM]; (iii) C. & C.C.E., Vapi vs. DNH Spinners - [2009-TIOL-1216-CESTAT-AHM]; (iv) CCE Vapi vs. Jindal Photo Limited - [2009 (14) STR 812 (Tri. Ahmd.)]; (v) Modern Petrofils - CCE Vadodara vs. CCE Vadodara - Modern Petrofils - [2010-TIOL-1204-CESTAT-AHM]; &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE Allahabad - [2013 (292) ELT 416 (Tri. Del.)] 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Regarding availment of input services credit by the appellant on the input services utilized at appellant's unregistered premises at Junagarh, Jamnagar and Vadodara (facilitation centres), it is observed that the said unregistered premises ought to have registered with the jurisdictional Service Tax Officers as 'Input Service Distributor' in terms of Rule 3 of the 'Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons) Rules 2005' read with Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On a similar set of facts, CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals vs. CCE Mangalore (supra) held as follows:- 2. I have given c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain (i) the name, address and registration number of the provider of input service and the serial number & date of the invoice/bill/challan issued by the service provider, (ii) the name and address of the ISD, (iii) the name and address of the recipient of the credit distributed and (iv) the amount of credit distributed. 3. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the manufacturing unit of the company at Mangalore chose to take CENVAT credit on BOFS provided by Corporation Bank, on the strength of the invoices issued by the bank to the Mumbai office of the company. Again, it is not in dispute that the Mumbai office of the appellant-company, which was, effectually, the recipient of the service rendered by the bank, allowed the Mangalo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
