9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged in construction services, construction of residential complex services, etc. They were registered at the Wardha office since April 2007, during which they were executing power project at Ghugus. Subsequently appellant also obtained registration for their Mumbai head office, in March 2009. The appellant was having another project at Mumbai. During this period various input services were received for both the projects. Finally on completion of the project - power project at Ghugus, the appellant raised their bills on the service receiver dated 29 March 2010 and 31 March 2010, from the head office wherein service tax have also been charged, collected and deposited with the exchequer. During the scrutiny of the returns for the period April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove that there was no service tax liability before taking service tax registration as observed by the adjudicating authority. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), also relied on the ruling of this Tribunal in M/s.Showa India private Ltd vs CCE- 2012 (275) ELT 128, wherein it was held that although registration is not required but in view of section 69(1) of the Finance act, it is clearly required that every person liable to pay service tax under the law, to be registered with the Department and consequently held that registration should have been taken by an assessee, also for the purpose of taking credit. Further the ground of limitation was also rejected observing that the facts came to knowledge of the Department only upon enquiry made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NVAT is not tenable, in view taking of subsequent registration for the Mumbai office. Further I find that the appellant were rendering taxable service right from the financial year 2007 - 08, for the same project for which input services received, the invoice for output service in March 2010 was raised upon completion of the project, as per the agreement between the parties. Accordingly I hold that the appellant is entitled to take the CENVAT credit, and remanding to the Adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verification of the invoices for input services received prior to the date of registration at Mumbai office. Further I find that there is no case of misconduct on the part of the appellant. Accordingly the penalties under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
