TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. Issue Demand Relevant period 1. Cenvat credit on invoices addressed to unregistered premises 1,83,57,185/- April, 2008 to March, 2013 2. Reversal of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6 1,31,33,782/- April, 2011 to September, 2011 3. Service Tax on services provided by AM Best, Hong Kong 14,90,216/- April, 2008 to March, 2012 Total 3,29,81,183/- 2. In regard to issues at serial nos. 2 and 3, Shri Kunal Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the appellant reversed CENVAT credit of Rs.1,31,33,782/- on March 14, 2013 and also paid interest of Rs.50,55,853/- on March 14, 2013. Learned counsel also pointed out that the appellant had deposite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Kumar & Associatess, and after placing reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court and decisions of the Tribunal, the Division Bench observed as follows: "15. The registration of premise with the Service Tax Department is not a condition for availing CENVAT credit. 16. The Karnataka High Court in MPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Limited held that there is no requirement in law that the premises should be registered for availing CENVAT credit and the relevant portion is reproduced below: "7. Insofar as 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rule 9 of the 2004 Rules are satisfied, the benefit of CENVAT credit could not have been demanded. Thus, the Commissioner was not justified in denying the benefit of CENVAT credit on the unregistered premises." 6. In view of the decision of the Tribunl in Rajender Kumar & Associatess, it has to be held that the registration of the premises with the Service Tax Department is not a condition for availing CENVAT credit. The demand could not, therefore, have been confirmed. 7. In regard to the issues raised at serial nos. 2 and 3, it needs to be pointed out, which fact is also clear from the show cause notice dated July 07, 2014 issued to the appellant, that prior to the issue of the show cause notice the appellant had reversed CENVAT cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Central Excise Officer, then a notice under section 73(1) is not to be issued. This fact that service tax had been deposited and intimation given is not disputed. Paragraph 2 of the show cause notice itself mentions that not only the credit had been reversed but the service tax had also been paid before the issuance of the show cause notice. The question that remains to be examined is whether the provision of sub-section (4) of section 73 of the Finance Act would be applicable. Section 73(4) of the Finance Act is reproduced below: "73(4) Nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall apply to a case where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of- ....