TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for centralized registration. I find from the letter dated 16/12/2004 that the appellant has stated that they may be given permission to have only one registered place in terms of Rule 3(a) of the Service Tax Rules. This request can be considered as an application for centralized registration. In any case, the centralized registration was granted subsequently on 26/03/2013. The department has not disputed that the input services were received at the branch office and further that they were utilised for providing output services. In fact perusal of the accounting records maintained at the Nagpur office shows the receipt of the services at branch office. - no reason to disallow the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 1,24,886/- on the documents pertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the service tax on output service provided from Chandrapur and Amravati is paid from Nagpur centralized office. He submits that they had applied for centralized registration in 2004, a copy of which is placed on record at page 49 of the appeal papers. The centralized registration was granted to them after follow up with the Service Tax department, on 26/03/2013. According to him the department has not raised any dispute regarding receipt of services at the branch office, the admissibility of credit on these services or the payment of service tax on output services provided from the branch office. The only objection of Revenue is that they did not have a centralized registration and therefore, the input credit is not admissible. 4.1 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he input services were received at the branch office and further that they were utilised for providing output services. In fact perusal of the accounting records maintained at the Nagpur office shows the receipt of the services at branch office. Therefore, I see no reason to disallow the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 1,24,886/- on the documents pertaining to the branch offices. 8. As regards the credit of ₹ 3,072/- the learned Counsel stated that these pertain to services of telephone. The bills were addressed in the Director's name but the office mentioned is the office premises of the appellant. Therefore, there is no ground to deny the service tax credit in this case and the same is allowed. 9. Having allowed the service tax c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
