TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in a nutshell, is that Appellant was a provider of sound recording service etc. and it took Service Tax registration in 2011. During the course of audit of the accounts maintained by the Appellant for the period between 2012-13 and 2016-17, it was noticed that certain invoices were addressed to Wilfred Apartment, Bandra (West) and Zeba Centre, Lower Parel which were not its registered office as shown in the ST-2 returns. Accordingly proposal to deny CENVAT Credit of the amount mentioned above, paid against invoices not addressed to the Appellant registered premises, was made through a show-cause notice issued to the Appellant. Upon its reply matter had undergone adjudication and first appellate process that resulted in confirmation of dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III, 2021 (45) G.S.T.L. 184 (Tri.-Del.) in case of Rajender Kumar & Associates Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II, 2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.) in case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Banglore, she submitted that the issue has been settled way back in 2012 itself (in mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd.) that registration of service receiver premises cannot be a precondition for availment of CENVAT Credit, for which order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable in law and facts. She also had drawn attention of this Bench to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) observing that no proof was provided concerning rendering of output services from the premises....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awn attention of this Bench to the fact that certain lease agreements had expired within 2 years of its execution in 2012 and registration certificate was issued in the name of the Appellant's partner and not to the Appellant firm for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) needs no interference by the Tribunal. 5. I have gone through the case record and observe that such a submission made by the Authorised Representative is erroneous as disputed credits also pertains to the period of the subsistence of the agreement and the invoices with address of the said premises were not issued after 2017. The other apprehension of the Authorised Representative is refuted by way of production of registration certificate copy issued to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot sought to be registered places this case on a different footing meriting differential treatment. Accordingly, the ratio of case law cited is not applicable. The argument of ignorance put forth is not convincing." 6. Having regard to the points raised in the sub-para (iv) it can be said that judicial precedent relied upon by the Appellant, as discussed above, including the one referred by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. are in favour of the Appellant. Since it has been distinctly analysed in all those judgements that there was no such requirement of having premises registered so as to make credits eligible for the purpose of its availment against inputs taken for providing output servi....