TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices under various categories. The appellant had availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,03,998/- in the month of 2008. It was noticed by the lower authorities that the assessee has got himself registered on 21.4.2006 while the credit availed by them in September 2008 was in respect of the input services received by them prior to the date of registration and the said credit was not availed immediately on receipt of the input services. Coming to such a conclusion, show cause notice dated 08.09.2010 was issued to the appellant. The appellant contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised in the show cause notice along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and submits that the assessee appellant herein had taken Cenvat credit belatedly and that it was not possible for the revenue to come to any conclusion as to eligibility of such credit. It is his submission that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit after rejection of the refund claim filed by them as being hit by limitation. 5. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the record. 6. The issue involved in this case, as per the show cause notice and as has been decided by the adjudicating authority is whether the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit for the services received by him from 01.9.2004 to 31.3.2006. The said credit which has been availed by the appellant was on 28.8.2008, after th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ZB/HAD/2010 dated 01.6.2012 is on the issue and covers the case of the appellant in his favour. The ratio of the said decision is reproduced below:- 6. Learned SDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and states that they could not have availed the cenvat credit before the registration, as provided under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is his submission that during the period April 2008 to 23.03.2009, it can be said the appellant has not provided or received taxable service as they were not registered with the department. I find that the issue is no more res-integra and the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Well-known Polyesters Limited (supra) squarely settled the issue in favour of the assessee. I, respect....