TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the invoices received prior to Service tax registration. For availment of Cenvat Credit for housekeeping services and hotel service charges which has been availed by the appellant in residential colony or for individuals. Therefore, I hold that Cenvat Credit on these services is not available to the appellant. Further, I find that during the course of the audit it was pointed out that appellant has taken inadmissible Cenvat credit and appellant has not paid inadmissible Cenvat credit. In these circumstances, revenue has rightly invoked the extended period of limitation. In these circumstances, I confirm the demand of ₹ 47,182/- to be paid by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as adjudicated. The demands against the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 6,95,390/- was denied along with interest and various penalties of the Finance Act was also imposed. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied for the invoices received prior to service tax registration as held by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of MPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. CST reported in 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) which has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Reliance Ports Terminals Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. reported in 2013-TIOL-388-CESTAT-Mum. For the denial of input services credit on the housekeeping charges, he submits that the same is governed by the decision of this Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aka in the case of M Portal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd (Supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka has observed as under: Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat Credit is concerned, Ld. Counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restrictions. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribed that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
