9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at. As regard availment of credit of 50%, since the 50% of credit was due in the year 2014-15 they have availed this credit in the said year at Surat as their business activity was being carried out at Surat. Therefore, this cannot be treated as transfer of credit from Mumbai to Surat. From the reading of the aforesaid Rule 10(2) it is absolutely clear that the Rule 10(2) applies only when a provider of output service shifts or transfers his business on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation lease or transfer of the business to joint venture with specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such business. In the present case even though the appellant have taken registration in Surat but there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant intended to shift their office from Mumbai to Surat for which they have requested for amendment of service tax registration which was rejected therefore, they had obtained a fresh registration at Surat then they had shown the remaining 50% credit on capital goods as opening balance in their books at Surat. The case of department is that since the appellant has transferred the credit from Mumbai to Surat the same is not eligible to them on the ground that they have not complied with the provision of Rule 10(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, The cenvat credit to the tune of 50% shown as opening balance has been denied by the original authority and the same was upheld by commissioner (Appeals).Therefore, the present appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally requested for amendment for the registration as except the change of address there was no change in the constitution of the company or nature of service however, the department has rejected their request therefore, they had no option except to obtain a fresh registration which they had obtained at Surat. As regard availment of credit of 50%, since the 50% of credit was due in the year 2014-15 they have availed this credit in the said year at Surat as their business activity was being carried out at Surat. Therefore, this cannot be treated as transfer of credit from Mumbai to Surat. The revenue also alleged that their credit of 50% is not on the proper documents as the documents were at the address of Mumbai. I find that the appellant r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Moreover if we read rule 10(1), a manufacture of final product if shifts his factory to another site he has to apply for transfer of the credit but there is no similar provision for service provider in Rule 10(2) that merely because a service provider transferred his business to a different location is operated under his own name, the rule 10(2) does not apply. 4.1 As regard the allegation that appellant instead of showing the credit shown opening balance I do not find anything wrong in that because whether it is shown as opening balance or shown as credit the same amount of credit will be available to the appellant. 4.2 In view of my above observation the appellant's taking credit of 50% on capital goods at Surat is absolutely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
