2018 (8) TMI 250 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – rent paid for the period, prior to registration – Held that:- The main reason why the Cenvat credit has been disputed by Revenue is that the premises for which rent was paid along with service tax was not part of the centralised registration till it was granted to the respondent with effect from 28.1.2015. It is further seen that the application for such centralised registration was submitted as early as on 9.1.2013, but the same was granted only in 2015.
–
Similar issue decided by Tribunal in the case of CCE & ST Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 1570 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD], where it was held that a service provider can avail Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on various input services, as long as the said services are used for providing output-taxable services.
–
Credit remains allowed – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – Appeal No. ST/51495/2018-SM – A/52608/2018-SM[BR] – Dated:- 18-7-20
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s issued proposing to deny such Cenvat credit. During the course of adjudication of the dispute, the authorities below came to the concurrent conclusion that the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant even though the premises taken on rent was only subsequently included in the centralised registration. Aggrieved by the findings of the impugned order, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard Shri H.C. Saini on behalf of Revenue, he reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on renting of immovable property may not be allowable to the appellant since the premises was not part of the registration. The lower authorities have allowed the benefit on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE & ST Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (52) STR 497 (Tri.-All.). Since Revenue has challenged such decision further, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed. 4. The case of the respondent was argued by Sh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
The first issue is with respect to availability of credit on input services received by assessee at its unregistered Premises – Stellar Park. The ld. AR for Revenue urges that credit have been taken for the service under Renting of Immovable Property for rent paid for the Stellar Park Premises, being unregistered with the department. The premises are not covered in the listed premises in their Centralised R.C. Thus, this premises cannot be said to be used for providing output service. Ld. Counsel for respondent assessee states that the Stellar Park Premises at Noida were taken on rent only in April, 2012. Thereafter they had applied for inclusion of Stellar Park address in their centralised R.C. on 24-4-2013, and the same was approved and granted on 19-7-2013. Further it has been certified by the C.A. that invoices for output service rendered from Stellar Park, was raised from the Registered Office at Noida. That as per Rule 3 of CCR, 2004, there was no condition precedent, that input
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =