2016 (7) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pril to June 2012. 2.  That the appellant is having its head office at Noida which was started sometime in the year 2010. The appellant had obtained the registration under the provisions of service tax and was making compliances. In the year October 2011 they opened branch office (s) at Mumbai for similar output services. The accounting for the 2 branches at Mumbai was centralised at Noida office. Due to the nature of export of their services, the appellant was unable to utilise the Cenvat credit received on the various input services utilised in the rendering of the output services. For the quarter ended in June 2012 the appellant filed refund claim of the accumulated Cenvat credit on 25/3/13, claiming refund of Rs. 38,51,823. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central accounting under sub rule 2 and 3A of Rule 4 of service tax rules. It is further pointed out that centralised registration, in response to their application dated 19/6/12, was granted on 4/9/12. The delay in granting centralised registration is wholly attributable to the revenue, as there was some problem in the software of Revenue. It is further pointed out that under the service tax Rules, an assessee is deemed to be registered on the 7^th the date of filing application for registration, unless there is objection to the application. The rejection of input services received at the Mumbai office, treating the same as unregistered premises is bad in view of the certificate of centralised registration dated 4/9/12, which is a conclus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....odd hours when food is normally not available locally. Similarly Travel Insurance provided to staff is fully allowable being part of travelling cost for the business purposes.    5.  The learnedly (A.R.) for the revenue relies on the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions I find that in view of the Registration granted - centralised, including the premises at Mumbai, it is conclusive proof that the appellant is in legal occupation of the said premises, have rendered output services from such premises and have maintained centralised accounting at the Noida Office. I also find that on opening of branch at Mumbai by appellant, an intimation by the director of STPI was given to revenue. I also find that ....