TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the findings of first appellate authority and accordingly, it is disposed of. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the respondent was correct in availing the cenvat credit of the capital goods which was procured by them during the year 2005-06 and installed in their hotel which started functioning from 21 May, 2009. It is undisputed that the respondent has registered themselves with the authority as recipient for services and also provider of services. The capital goods which were purchased by the respondent were installed in the hotel premises and were undoubtedly used for providing output services. On such a background, the first appellate authority has set aside order-in-ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has held admissibility of credit for those who were not registered at all, there is no reason why credit in the present case be not allowed. In this background and in view of the catena of case laws cited above. I find that the stand of the Department has no merit. The credit is to be allowed in the instant case. 9. In respect of the second question framed earlier, I find that the Appellant had received Capital Goods in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and took credit was taken in the year 2010-11. Thus, credit was taken in 2010-11 i.e. either at a gap of one year or two years from the time goods were received in their premises. This position must be seen in the light of the provisions of the Rule 4(2) of CCR, 2004: (2)(a) The CENVAT cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appellant cannot be faulted for taking 100 credit in the subsequent year of tw9 years later than the receipt of capital goods in their hotel premises which was alter (f29stered for providing output services in 2010-11. 10. In view of the answers to the two main question going in favour of appellant, the CENVAT Credit availed is held as admissible in the eyes of law, and thus the order of demand in the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Once the main activity of the appellant is found in order and no contravention is proved, consequent to which the amount of demand itself is held as non-sustainable, the question of levy of interest and imposition of penalty does not arise and thus the impugned order on this point also ....