Case Law Details
HID India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
In this case refund of the unutilized cenvat credit was rejected holding that; firstly, the input services were received prior to obtaining the service tax registration from the Department; secondly, the invoices show the address of their Head office at Bangalore and not the address at Chennai where the services were availed; thirdly, the FIRC is received by their Bangalore office and therefore does not match with the address of the appellant at Chennai.
Held by CESTAT
Refund of unutilized cenvat credit cannot be denied for ITC received prior to obtaining the service tax registration
The first issue is with regard to the rejection of refund claim holding that some of the input services have been received prior to obtaining service tax registration from the department. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Scionspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had considered the very same issue and held that the credit cannot be denied for the reason that the services have been availed in an unregistered premises. The Tribunal in the case of Vamshadhara Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) and Rajendra Kumar & Associates (supra) held that denial of credit cannot be justified on this ground. Following these decisions, I am of the view that the rejection of refund claims on this ground cannot be justified and requires to be set aside which I hereby do.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Hi Sir, Can you provide order copy of Judgement Final Order No.42286-42288/2021 dated 30.08.2021.
on capunit@hotmail.com ?
Thanks