9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same project for which input services received, the invoice for output service in March 2010 was raised upon completion of the project, as per the agreement between the parties. The appellant is entitled to take the CENVAT credit - case remanded to the Adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verification of the invoices for input services received prior to the date of registration at Mumbai office. Penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no case of misconduct on the part of the appellant - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 88423 of 2018 - A/85881/2019 - Dated:- 8-5-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Anagha Ganade, Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input services invoices, which were received by them before they had obtained service tax registration at Mumbai. The amount of such credit taken at the Mumbai office prior to date of registration amounting to ₹ 27,73,224/- which was utilised for payment of output tax, subsequently. It appeared to revenue that CENVAT credit for input services received prior to the date of registration, is not admissible and accordingly show cause notice dated 30-11-2012 was issued proposing to demand by return of ₹ 27, 73, 224 along with interest and further penalty was also proposed. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand confirmed with equal amount of penalty under section 78. Further interest was demanded and penalty was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration. Whereas the Learned Commissioner have rejected the CENVAT credit on the ground that as the appellant have failed to give evidence that during the period when they received the input service, they were also rendering output taxable service. Hence credit is rightly denied, on the knowledge. Counsel further demonstrates that it is not the case that they were not at all registered. They were already registered at the Wardha office with the Department and had also taken registration for the Mumbai office subsequently. Further the renting of output services commenced from March April 2007 and on completion of the project the invoices were raised and service tax was charged. Thus the finding of the authority that they were not rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
