Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 322 - AT - Service TaxReversal of CENVAT Credit - no centralised registration - contravention of Rule 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, without specific mention of which sub-Rule of Rule 4 - HELD THAT:- Facts of the case therein and the present one are almost identical since in MANIPAL ADVERTISING SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE., MANGALORE [2009 (10) TMI 434 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. Also documents in the name of Appellant therein were addressed to its other premises located at Bangalore, New Delhi and Chennai Office which was held to have contravened provision of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It was held in that decision that in the event of centralised billing and centralised accounting system, when one registration is permissible under Section 4(2), discharging Service Tax liability from the registered premises would not disentitled the benefits of CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid by the service provider if invoices are raised in the name of Branch offices, even if the said Branch offices are unregistered one since Service Tax liability has been discharged by the main office also for service provided by the Branches. Further, when Service Tax has been paid from the main office for the input services received by the branch office, it was held that the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of STADMED PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD [1997 (6) TMI 224 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA] and GUJARAT HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT [2005 (6) TMI 177 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], though delivered in respect of MODVAT Credit on Central Excise duty, would also be applicable to the case in hand. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of denial of CENVAT Credits to the Appellant for input services availed by branch office at Delhi is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
|