9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] had considered the very same issue and held that the credit cannot be denied for the reason that the services have been availed in an unregistered premises. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. VAMSHADHARA PAPER MILLS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2019 (5) TMI 252 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] and M/S RAJENDER KUMAR ASSOCIATESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-II [ 2020 (11) TMI 621 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] held that denial of credit cannot be justified on this ground - the rejection of refund claims on this ground cannot be justified. Refund rejected on the ground that FIRC statement bears the address of their Bangalore Head office and also that invoices bear the address of the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces show the address of their Head office at Bangalore and not the address at Chennai where the services were availed; thirdly, the FIRC is received by their Bangalore office and therefore does not match with the address of the appellant at Chennai. 3. Against the orders of rejection of refund passed by the adjudicating authority, the appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders passed by the original authority. Hence these appeals. 4. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri K. Dayananda appeared and argued the matter. 4.1 With regard to the first issue that the appellant is not eligible for refund of the credit availed on input services f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C copy with the address at Bangalore as per their records. A single bank account cannot be registered with multiple addresses and therefore the requirement for furnishing FIRC has been complied. This issue was considered by the Tribunal in the final order stated above and held in favour of the appellant. He prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 5. Ld. A.R Ms. Sridevi Taritla appeared for the Department. She supported the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The first issue is with regard to the rejection of refund claim holding that some of the input services have been received prior to obtaining service tax registration from the department. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Scionspire Consul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
