TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax in Mumbai) and (3) Technip KT India Limited, Delhi (registered with Service Tax in Noida). All the three companies had a common holding company which decided to amalgamate these companies. The scheme of amalgamation was presented and obtained the approval of three Hon'ble High Courts, namely, High Court of Madras, Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court in respect of each of these entities respectively. 2. The following features of the scheme are noteworthy;- (a) All assets (including tax benefits) and liabilities of the Chennai and Mumbai companies would stand transferred and be succeeded by Techip KT India Limited. (b) The scheme would take into effect (i.e. the effective date) after all the formalities regarding the scheme are compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....04.2016, in which it was accepted by the Department that credit was available with the entities registered in Chennai and Mumbai. There was no dispute on the quantum or correctness of the credit. However, in this audit memo it was pointed that no permission had been taken by the appellant from the Chennai and Mumbai Service Tax Authorities and accordingly the approval of credit was registered by the Department. 6. These audit proceedings resulted in show cause notice which was issued the very next day that i.e. on 02.04.2016. In the show cause notice the following allegations were made against the appellant:- (i) That the appellant had not complied with the condition under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. (ii) No information was prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) Further, it has been pointed out in the impugned order that the appellant has not reversed Cenvat Credit prior to the transfer with the Chennai and Mumbai Authorities. (iii) The amendment in the centralized registration took place only on 08.10.2014 and therefore for the purpose of Service Tax all the three entities continued to exist till such date; meaning thereby that credit could not be transferred prior to 08.10.2014. (iv) In respect of the contention of the Appellant that there is no requirement for satisfaction of the officers in respect of credit of input service alone, it has been held in the impugned order that according to the Department credit of only input services also requires satisfaction of Rule 10(3). (v) Furthermor....