9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 is assailed by the Revenue Department in this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that during the course of audit it was observed that respondent had availed Cenvat Credit on input services received at its unregistered premises situated at 5th Floor of the building while its 3rd Floor premises was recorded as registered in ST-2 certificate. Those services include renting of immovable property, cleaning, housekeeping and security for the period prior to inclusion of the premises in the registration certificate w.e.f. 18-05-2016. Recovery of such credits alongwith interest and equal penalty was ordered by the adjudicating authority after the appellant was being called upon to show cause for such wrong availment. Appellant appealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncorporated in the registration certificate on 18-05-2016 which contains the same registration number that had been allotted to the premises situated in the 3rd floor for which the invoices were to be held as valid invoices as per Rule 9 of CCR 2004. He also submitted that Learned commissioner (appeals) in his detailed order has refered to the judicial precedent set in the case of a) mPortal India - 2012(27)STR 134(Kar.), b) Imagination Technologies- 2011 (23)STR 661 (Try-Mum), and c) Curadev Pharma- 2017(7) GSTL 269(All.) to held his findings in favour of the appellant. Referring to subsequent judicial decision of this Tribunal pronounced in the cases of a) Rishiroop Polymers Ltd.-2019-TIOL-114-CESTAT-MUM, b) Rishiroop Polymers Ltd. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods or services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of the account of the receiver, he may allow the CENVAT credit] He then observed as follows; On going through the above proviso to sub rule (2) of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 I notice that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has not disputed the claim of the Appellant that all the input service invoice were in their name, which were used for providing output service and the Cenvat Credit in respect of these input service invoice was availed only after following the due procedure, therefore I am of the view that as the input service invoice are in Appellant's name, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
