CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal Versus M/s Diligent Power Pvt. Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 250 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Appeal No. ST/51495/2018-SM – A/52608/2018-SM[BR]
Service Tax
Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
Shri H.C. Saini, D.R. – for the appellant
Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, CA – for the respondent
ORDER
Per V. Padmanabhan:
The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 862/2017-18 dated 27.3.2018.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Consulting Engineers. During the course of audit, it was observed that the respondent has availed and utilised Cenvat credit of service tax paid by them on account of Renting of Immovable Property Services. It was further noticed that such rent was paid for the period prior to obtaining centralised registration including such premises. The application made for centralised re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, ld. CA. It is his submission that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was further upheld by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported as 2017 (52) STR J253 (All.). He submitted that even though Revenue has challenged the decision further the benefit is to be granted to the respondent.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
roved 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 service have to be received at Registered Premises, only of the output service provider. Further reliance is placed on the ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CST, 2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.) and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corporation Limited v. CCE, 2013 (32) S.T.R. 532 (Bom.). Considering the rival contentions, following the rulings of Karnataka High Court and Bombay High Court (supra), this ground is rejected. It is 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.”
7. The said decision has further been upheld
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =