9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - and rejected the remaining amount on the ground of Non-Registration of premises and ineligible CENVAT credit on Car parking charges. The adjudicating authority rejected refund on CENVAT credit, on the following services, for the reasons stated, in the following Table, in Order-in-Original No.05/2016 dated 27.01.2016. S.No. Refund of CENVAT credit claimed on Rejected amount (Rs.) Reasons for rejection 01. Car Parking Charges 1557 Not an input service as per Rule 2(I) of CENVAT credit Rules 02. Challan for payment under reverse charges not submitted 17072 03 Service Tax amount not mentioned in invoices 60486 04. Unregistered premises at Principal Tower, College Road, Chennai 17721 The premises were not registered. 05. Services received at 4th and 5th Floor of Menon Eternity, New Door No.165, St.Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18. 1668253 The premises were not registered at the time of export but subsequently obtained Registration. 06. Services received at International Tech Part Unit No.1 to 4, 11th Floor Taramani Chennai. 1357366 3122455 3. The respondent also filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and to claim refund, and held that non-registration of premises cannot be a ground to reject refund claim. Accordingly, he set aside the impugned order to the extent of rejection of the portion of the refund claim, done on the ground of Non-registration, on the services pertaining to the respondent premises of the 4th and 5th Floor (Menon Eternity) and the premises at Taramani, considering the fact that Registration was obtained subsequently for the above premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that in respect of the premises at Mumbai and at College Road, Chennai, the respondent had not produced any Registration Certificate for these premises. Hence, upheld disallowance of CENVAT credit to these premises. 4.3 In respect of Car Parking charges, Commissioner(Appeals) has observed that the parking area cannot be considered as a separate area and it is a part of the premises occupied by the respondent. He also held that once, service tax paid on the rental charges is eligible for CENVAT credit, then service tax paid on the car parking charges is equally eligible for CENVAT credit and thus set aside the disallowance of CENVAT credit. 4.4 In respect of rental charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prayer, Ms.Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that registration is an act by which every manufacturer/assessee/service provider, comes under the ambit of Central Excise Act, 1944 / Finance Act, 1994. In order to avail any substantive benefit, like, CENVAT Credit available under the statute, registration of premises from which the taxable service is rendered is a pre-requisite. Therefore, when registration has not been done as per Section 69 of the Act, the respondent is not entitled for refund of CENVAT read with rule 4(1) of the Rules which render them ineligible far CENVAT credit an input services accumulated prior to registration. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the respondent is not entitled for refund of CENVAT credit in respect of input or input service used, in export of service, without payment of service tax, prior to the date of their being registered with service tax department. According to her, the issue involved in these appeals, is not a mere technical lapse. In order to derive any substantive benefit of any Act/Rule, the person claiming such substantive benefit has to strictly follow the conditions and proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Service Tax, Chennai -III Vs. M/s Scioinspire Consulting Services (India) P Ltd., applied by CESTAT, Madras, for deciding the appeal in favour of the respondent, was accepted by the department due to monetary limit and not on merits, and therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ratio of the said judgment, should not have been taken as a binding precedent, in view of Section 35R (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The subsequent decision of CESTAT, Madras, vide FO No. 42500/2016 dated 20/12/2016 in the case of the same party viz., M/s Scioinspire Consulting Services (India) P Ltd. was also appealed in this Hon'ble Court, by the department vide CMA. Sr. No.54980 of 2017. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs Sutham Nylocots, vide final order in CMA No.926/2006, dated 09.01.2014, reported in 2014 (306) E.L.T. 255 (Mad) held that 'if at all the assessee is entitled to any credit it would accrue only subsequently to the date of the registration with the Department'. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
