TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egular only on the ground that such inputs, capital goods and input services on which Cenvat credit has been availed were received at places other than their registered premises. The issue has been settled in favour of the Appellant in the case of M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, LTU, NEW DELHI [ 2023 (6) TMI 646 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it has been held that registration of premises with service tax department is not a condition precedent for claiming CENVAT credit. Demand of Interest - HELD THAT:- The CENVAT credit availed and utilized by the Appellant on the inputs, capital goods and input services received in the premises other than the registered premises cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors, cable harness assembly, call centre charges, operational service charges etc. which were received by them at places other than their registered premises. A break up of such input, capital goods and input services are tabulated below: Input Rs. 14,77,837/- Capital Goods Rs. 89,999/- Input Services Rs. 37,53,126/- TOTAL Rs. 53,20,962/- 2. A SCN dated 03.10.2012 was issued to the Appellant alleging that the availment of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services received at places other than their registered premises was irregular as the same were availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi II, 2021 (45) GSTL 184 (Tri-Del) Deepak Fertilizers Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur 2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.) 5. The Appellant submitted that they have been providing telecommunication services and for rendering such services, they have taken various premises on rent by entering into licence agreement with owners/holders of such premises. They have installed cell sites and established other offices on such premises which are used for providing telecommunication services (output service). They were using the disputed inputs and capital goods at the cell sites for providing telecommunication services. In certain cases, they have established a warehouse in some premises where inputs and capital goods ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved in the registered premises of the provider of output service. 7. The Appellant further submitted that there is no allegation in the SCN or finding in the O-I-O in respect of the disputed inputs, input services and capital goods that: a. Such goods/services have not been procured on payment of appropriate excise duty/service tax, b. Such goods/services have not been directly or indirect used by the Appellant to provide output service (telecommunication service). 8. When the aforesaid facts are not in dispute then CENVAT credit on input, input services and capital goods received at places other than registered premises of the Appellant should not be disallowed. In light of the same the O-I-O confirming the demand is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the Appellant in the case of M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, LTU, New Delhi, 2023 (6) TMI 646 CESTAT New Delhi, wherein it has been held that registration of premises with service tax department is not a condition precedent for claiming CENVAT credit. The relevant extract from the said decision is reproduced below: The first issue is with regard to the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on invoices address to unregistered premises. This issue was considered by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in Rajender Kumar Associates, and after placing reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court and decisions of the Tribunal, the Division Bench observed as foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cument. We find in various decisions, this Tribunal held that the credit cannot be denied on this reason. Reference can be made to the decision in Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra). We also note that in the appellant s own case on the same issue, the Original Authority for the later period held that denial of credit cannot be justified on this ground, vide order dated 21-7- 2016. 18. This is what was also held by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in Pernod Ricard India Private Limited. 19. Once the requirement of rule 4A of the 1994 Rules and rule 9 of the 2004 Rules are satisfied, the benefit of CENVAT credit could not have been demanded. Thus, the Commissioner was not justified in denying the benefit of CENVAT credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
