9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations could be matched with the corresponding invoice numbers and the address of the premises where the services were provided, Learned Counsel replied in negative. Therefore, merely based on the assertions of the Learned Counsel, I find it impossible to come to any conclusion that the statement given by the appellant established that the services from these seven premises - there is not even a casual remark or mention in any of these invoices that the services were rendered from any of the seven disputed premises. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, I am unable to come to a conclusion with these invoices that output services were rendered from any of the seven disputed premises. Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- It was incumbent upon the appellant to ensure that they take credit as per the rules and not in violation of them. I do not find that the appellant had any reason to believe that they would have been entitled to CENVAT credit on the input services when they have not even kept a record of having rendered any output services from these seven premises - the SCN demanding the recovery of the CENVAT credit along with interest invoking extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 such services excluded from the definition of input services and thus ae ineligible for credit. iii) The appellants had not provided any taxable output services from the seven new premises during the period when they took credit of input services. 5. The First Appellate Authority examined each of the above 3 grounds. On the first aspect he held that as decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Private Ltd., Vs CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134-KAR] and GE India Exports Private Ltd., Vs CCE & ST, Hyderabad-II [2016 (44) STR 693 (Tri-Hyd)] registration is not a requirement for availing CENVAT credit on tax paid on input services. Therefore the original authority was wrong in rejecting credit taken on this ground. As far as second issue is concerned the First Appellate Authority held that the decision made by the original authority has no factual or legal basis. The credit was sought to be taken on services which were used in setting up of facilities in the new premises prior to all output services is not correct. The services were in the nature of air travel agent services, cleaning servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hyderabad and Noida units and have been filing ST returns, accordingly after the introduction of ACES software by the department they were told that theirs is an individual registration. They were pursuing with the department to sort out this issue and therefore there was a delay in applying for the registration of the seven new premises. At any rate, this delay in registration would not disentitle them to CENVAT credit on the input services received prior to the date of inclusion of these seven premises in their centralised registration. Although the original authority has held it against them, the First Appellate Authority has correctly held in their favour. He would also submit the First Appellate Authority has also held in their favour on the second issue discussed above. The only dispute which remains is the provision of output services from these seven new premises during the period. He would assert that they had indeed rendered services from these seven new premises during the relevant period but had not paid any service tax because their entire services were exported to their parent unit and no services were rendered within India. In support this claim, he submitted the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered by the appellant from the seven new premises during the relevant period. As far as the first question is concerned Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is the only basis for anyone taking CENVAT credit. This rule provides for CENVAT credit to a manufacturer or a provider of output services of the tax/duty paid on inputs or capital goods or input services received by the manufacturer or provider of output services. In other words, the provision of output services is an essential requirement for entitlement to CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Coming to the second issue, the Learned Counsel for the appellant vociferously asserted that they had indeed rendered output services from these seven premises. I have considered his assertion and documents which he submitted in support. The rent agreement proved that these premises were rented by them but cannot prove or disprove whether any output services were provided from these premises. The attendance register may indicate that people were going to these offices and thereby implying that output services may have been rendered from these premises. However, copies of the attendance registers produced before me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were rendered from these premises, Learned Counsel replied in negative. In view of the above, I have no option but to hold that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that they have rendered output services from these seven premises. Therefore, the invoice of input services used in these premises cannot be used to avail CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. 10. It was incumbent upon the appellant to ensure that they take credit as per the rules and not in violation of them. I do not find that the appellant had any reason to believe that they would have been entitled to CENVAT credit on the input services when they have not even kept a record of having rendered any output services from these seven premises. In view of the above, I find that the show cause notice demanding the recovery of the CENVAT credit along with interest invoking extended period of limitation and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 78 was correctly issued. Two grounds raised in the show cause notice which were not sustainable were already dropped by the First Appellate Authority whose impugned order is extremely fair and well balanced and requires no interference. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
