TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eds of plants. The representative of the appellant explains that they collect germ plasm and seeds from various sources, test them for their traits and performance in various agro-climatic zones and under different agro climatic practices. They also cross these seeds to produce newer varieties and hybrids and likewise test them. Further, in addition to testing these seeds in their own farms under technical supervision they also test them in various farmers' fields under actual farming conditions. For this purpose, they entered into agreements with the farmers across the country in whose fields they test these seeds. 2. After obtaining the details of the test results from various places, they prepare a consolidated report and send it to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the 1st ground of invoices not bearing the service tax registration number of the service providers, he would submit that there is a factual error inasmuch as with respect to two of the invoices VPN0416872482 dated 28th April 2016 issued by M/s Tata Communications Ltd and Invoice No. INA9167464 dated 16th June 2016 issued by M/s AT&T the service tax registration number of the service providers was indeed mentioned. Therefore, they are entitled to CENVAT credit with respect to these two invoices. With respect to the other invoices also he would argue that not mentioning the service tax registration number in the invoice is a condonable lapse and therefore they should not be denied CENVAT credit on this ground when they are entitled for C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t these offices also. Therefore, their appeal may be allowed and impugned may be set aside. He relied on the decision in the case of Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd Vs CCE Raigad [2017(5)TMI 665-CESTAT Mumbai] to assert that not mentioning of service tax registration No is only a technical lapse based on which CENVAT Credit cannot be denied. 4. Learned A.R reiterates the findings of the impugned order. With respect to the 1st issue of the invoices not bearing the service tax registration number, he would submit that Rule 9 (2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 specifies that no CENVAT credit shall be allowed unless all particulars as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules 2002 or Service Tax Rules 1994 as the case may be are contained in the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber. is not indicated, no CENVAT credit can be allowed. With respect to second contention of invoices not bearing the name of the assessee as service recipient he would submit that there is no evidence that the input services were used by the appellant in providing export services and therefore no refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 can be allowed. With reference to the third issue of unregistered addresses of the assesses being mentioned, he would submit that the premises where the services were provided as indicated in the service tax invoices were not registered with the service tax department and it is not evident that the service was provided from these places. Certainly there is no evidence that the exported services are provided or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akeover of the firm from another unit. Accordingly, once the business has been taken over, all assets and liabilities of the previous unit will be taken over by the present appellant including any invoices which may have been wrongly issued in the name of the previous concern. Accordingly, I find that appellant is entitled to refund of invoices not bearing the name of the assessee as service recipient but bearing the name of the previous unit. 6. As far as the third issue is concerned, I find that appellant is exporting services only from their main office, and not from various offices. It is similar to Beedi factories where tobacco and leaves are issued to various individuals who roll the beedis in their homes and bring them back to the....