TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rules, 2004 read with Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for having been availed, without eligibility, between 2nd August, 2007 and 4th February, 2009, along with appropriate interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, besides imposing penalty of like amount under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant is before us for the second time and the present appeal is a consequence of de novo proceedings following remand of the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The show cause notice, initiating the proceedings following audit of the appellant, had also proposed disallowance of another Rs. 1,22,16,154 pertaining to the period from 4th February, 2009 to 1st July, 2009 which was dropped in the impugned order. 2. The amount pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S.T.R. 134 (Kar.)], was followed in several decisions of the Tribunal and relied upon by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai v. CESTAT, Chennai [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.)] and by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida v. Atrenta India Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (48) S.T.R. 361 (All)]. 4. Learned Authorised Representative, drawing upon the finding of the adjudicating authority, contended that the appellant was unable to comply with the terms in the remand order that the jurisdictional official be enabled to satisfy himself about consumption of the 'input services' and that the obligation entailed by Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not fulfilled. 5. It is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umentation being incomplete, from the point of view of the jurisdictional officials, subjective satisfaction of receipt and the deployment can affirm availment. Impliedly, the want of such satisfaction empowers the jurisdictional officials to proceed with denial of credit as having been wrongly availed. It was in this context that the Tribunal required that the process be undertaken before the appellant herein was denied eligibility for credit on the technical ground of non-registration. In effect, the Tribunal had discarded the ground of non-registration as irrelevant to availment of credit. 7. Registration of 'person liable to pay the service tax' is mandated by Section 69 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to his the assessee was legally entitled to on the ground that he is not registered with the department.' which was held to be untenable thus '7. Insofar as the requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, Learned Counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes the registration is mandatory and that such registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence and in law...' 9. ....