9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be denied on procedural irregularities. Reliance can be placed in SPICE DIGITAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH [ 2023 (5) TMI 196 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where it was held that ' the availment based on invoices issued by input service distributor prior to registration under Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons) Rules, 2005 is only procedural irregularity and hence the denial of credit is bad in law.' Further, it is found that in the case of M/S RAJENDER KUMAR ASSOCIATESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-II [ 2020 (11) TMI 621 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , Hon'ble CESTAT has held that registration of the premises is not a condition for availing cenvat credit. In this order. Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014-15 19,38,046 2 16/ST/Div-XVI/2017-18 dated 17.05.2017 2015-16 24,23,859 3 D-III/ST/R-IV/SCN/Iffco Tokio/666/2012/1591 dated 26.10.2017 216-17 2017-18(up to 30.06.2017) 31.34,839 Total 74,96,744 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable insurance auxiliary service. It is performing all its operational activities/services from IFFCO Tower, 4th Floor, Plot No. 3, Sector 29, Gurugram, and having centralized billing and accounting system at the said address. Its offices at different locations do not function independently. These are just extensions of its operational office at Gurugram and undertaking back-office activities. During the notice period, the appellant had discharged its tax l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 9(2) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the Order- in-Original by merely reiterating the findings of the Additional Commissioner without rebutting the appellant s submissions. He further submits that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by catena of decisions wherein the Hon ble Tribunal and the High Courts have held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the invoice for input service has been issued to unregistered branch office. Few of the decision are mentioned here in below: (1) C.S.T vs. Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (43) S.T.R. 542 (Kar.) (ii) EXL Service.Com India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res integra and the Tribunal in various decisions cited (Supra) has consistently held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied on procedural irregularities. It is pertinent to reproduce the said findings which are contained in para 8 onwards in the case of Spice Digital Ltd and are reproduced here in below: 8. Further, we find that this issue has been considered by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax Cus., Bengaluru vs. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. 2022 (61) GSTL 417 (Kar.) and the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka after considering the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Dashion Ltd. 2016 (41) STR 884 and the decision of the Hon ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time prescribed. However, there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons disentitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted. It was in this background that the Tribunal viewed the requirement as curable. Particularly when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty. Question No. 1 therefore shall have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid for various services by one unit for the purpose of clearance of other unit. After gathering details from the assessee, the adjudicating authority issued show cause notice calling upon the assessee as to why the Cenvat credit of service tax on input service should not be recovered with interest and penalties. In the show cause notice itself, the adjudicating authority had referred to sub- rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2004 as basis for such proposal. Two primary objections of the Department were that the assessee had not registered itself under the Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons) Rules, 2005 and that the tax credit from one unit was utilized for discharging tax liability of another unit instead of pro ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
