9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kauli JUDGMENT This is a central excise appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 04.11.2015. The department by way of this appeal raised two following questions of law:- i. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in allowing the refund and CENVAT credit of the services used at unregistered premises? ii. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service, it is the case of the department that the said registration was originally confined at NOIDA and that the addition of the premises at Mumbai was done on 04.09.2012 and therefore, the benefit of CENVAT on service provided from the Mumbai premises could not be availed by the opposite party prior to the date of inclusion of the Mumbai premises in the registration whereafter the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been rendered by Mumbai Office, for which bill (s) have been raised. Thus I hold that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit in respect of input services received at the premises other than the premises at Noida." We have heard Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the department and Sri Krishnamohan K. Menon, Sri Mohit Singh and Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the respondent. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside." This very question came up for consideration in a matter before this Court in the case of Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate Vs. M/s Atrenta India Pvt. Noida reported in [2017(2) ADJ 590 (DB)], wherein this Court took a v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
