9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, they have been exporting 100% of their services and claiming refund of the CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. They have a centralised registration in Hyderabad and have facilities in 8 other locations. The original authority issued a show cause notice proposing to demand and recover CENVAT credit of Rs. 49,72,110/- taken irregularly by the appellants during the period December 2012 to November 2013 along with interest in terms of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2014 read with proviso to Section 73(2) of Finance Act 1994 and to impose penalty under Section78. After considering the submissions made, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties as proposed. Aggrieved, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ltd., Vs CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134-KAR] and GE India Exports Private Ltd., Vs CCE & ST, Hyderabad-II [2016 (44) STR 693 (Tri-Hyd)] registration is not a requirement for availing CENVAT credit on tax paid on input services. Therefore the original authority was wrong in rejecting credit taken on this ground. As far as second issue is concerned the First Appellate Authority held that the decision made by the original authority has no factual or legal basis. The credit was sought to be taken on services which were used in setting up of facilities in the new premises prior to all output services is not correct. The services were in the nature of air travel agent services, cleaning services, legal consultancy services, management, maint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above, he held that the appellant is not entitled to take CENVAT Credit and has upheld the order of the lower authority on this ground. 6. The department has not filed any appeal against the order of the First Appellate Authority with respect to the first two grounds and therefore to that extent the issue has been settled in favour of the assessee. The only issue which needs to be decided is regarding the third issue of whether any output services were provided from the seven new premises where the input services were utilised on which the disputed CENVAT credit was taken. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant would argue that there was a delay in the application for registration of the seven new premises because of the confusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of invoices v) Registration certificate with the State Government under professional tax He would argue that they indeed rendered output services from these premises and therefore they are entitled to CENVAT credit. 8. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the First Appellate Authority and submits that whatever relief could be granted to the appellant was already granted by the First Appellate Authority. However, Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules provides for CENVAT credit only to a manufacture or a provider of output services on any input services received by them. In other words, where some output services are rendered, any input services which go into provision of such output services are eligible for CENVAT credit. If the output servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses during the relevant period. As far as the first question is concerned Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is the only basis for anyone taking CENVAT credit. This rule provides for CENVAT credit to a manufacturer or a provider of output services of the tax/duty paid on inputs or capital goods or input services received by the manufacturer or provider of output services. In other words, the provision of output services is an essential requirement for entitlement to CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Coming to the second issue, the Learned Counsel for the appellant vociferously asserted that they had indeed rendered output services from these seven premises. I have considered his assertion and documents which he submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the appellant. These also do not throw any light as the invoices were not raised from any of these seven locations but were raised either from Hyderabad or from their Noida Development Centre. Learned Counsel would submit that since the services were billed for centrally and hence all invoices were raised by their head office in Hyderabad or Noida. However, I find there is not even a casual remark or mention in any of these invoices that the services were rendered from any of the seven disputed premises. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, I am unable to come to a conclusion with these invoices that output services were rendered from any of the seven disputed premises. The last document that the appellant seeks to rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
