Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Versus Kamat Constructions And Resorts Pvt Ltd

CENVAT Credit on capital goods received much before registration - whether the respondent was correct in availing the cenvat credit of the capital goods which was procured by them during the year 2005-06 and installed in their hotel which started functioning from 21 May, 2009 - Held that:- Respondent has registered themselves with the authority as recipient for services and also provider of services. The capital goods which were purchased by the respondent were installed in the hotel premises an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lusion other than what first appellate authority has arrived at that the cenvat credit on the capital goods is allowable, which were received even when the respondent was not registered as service provider. It is common knowledge that the capital goods are received for installation during the construction activity and the service tax liability arises when the hotel starts functioning. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/90082/14-Mum, ST/CO/91013/15-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/3642-3643/2015- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is disposed of. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the respondent was correct in availing the cenvat credit of the capital goods which was procured by them during the year 2005-06 and installed in their hotel which started functioning from 21 May, 2009. It is undisputed that the respondent has registered themselves with the authority as recipient for services and also provider of services. The capital goods which were purchased by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is not the case of the Department that the appellant was not registered at all. The main ground is that the appellant as registered as service recipient' and got the registration modified as service "provider' subsequent to availing credit. There is no allegation that credit was availed without paying the duty on those capital goods. Going into, the circumstances, the "stand of the appellant is convincing. I find the appellant were in the process of setting up a hotel which ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

activities of hotel operation from 21 st May, 2009. That means that in their case, they were registered when capital goods were received, albeit, as service receiver. If the Hon'ble Tribunal has held admissibility of credit for those who were not registered at all, there is no reason why credit in the present case be not allowed. In this background and in view of the catena of case laws cited above. I find that the stand of the Department has no merit. The credit is to be allowed in the ins .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e premises of the provider of output service at any point of time in a given financial year shall be taken only for an amount not exceeding fifty percent of the duty paid on such capital goods in the same financial year. b) The balance of CENT/AT credit may be taken in any financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received in the factory of the manufacturer, in the premises of the provider of output service, if the capital goods, other than components, spare .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at any point of time in a given financially year as reference point linked to the first 50 credit of the duty paid on such capital goods. Then the remaining 50 credit can be taken in subsequent year in terms of clause (b) of Rule 4(2) of CCR, 2004. Evidently, if the credit is not taken in the first or second year at all, then whenever credit is taken, the entire J.OO credit can be taken. In view of this legal position I find that the appellant cannot be faulted for taking 100 credit in the subs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version