Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 805 - AT - Service TaxRefund of the unutilized cenvat credit - rejection of refund on the ground that input services were received prior to obtaining the service tax registration from the Department - refund denied also on the ground that the FIRC is received by their Bangalore office and therefore does not match with the address of the appellant at Chennai. Rejection of refund claim holding that some of the input services have been received prior to obtaining service tax registration from the department - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Scionspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (4) 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 Bangalore Head office - HELD THAT:- The banker has issued the FIRC 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 - the credit is eligible - the rejection of the refund claim cannot be justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|