TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required for determination at '(1)' above - whether or not the demand under Rule 14 of The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is tenable, is taken up. On perusal of their records, it was observed that the demand relates to cenvat credit availed on invoices not consigned to the appellants address. The Lower Authority after due consideration of the reply filed by the appellant observed that rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules. 1994 along with Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were violated. The said rule 4A at the material time read as follows: "Rule 4A(1) Every person providing taxable service shall [, not later than [thirty days] from the date of [completion of] such taxable service or receipt of any payment towards the value ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for any intendment In case of M/S VEE Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. versus U.O.I [2014 (305) E.LT. 100 (All.)], Hon'ble Allahabad High Court while quoting various Judgments held that when law requires something to be done in a particular manner, any other procedure adopted or the procedure deviated or not followed would be illegal inasmuch as, one has to proceed only in the manner prescribed under law. The Madras High Court upheld the CESTAT Final Order in matter M/S Golden Dew Tea Factory v. Commissioner (2009 (15) S.TR. 358 (Tri.-Chennai) in which it was held that "There is no room for any intendment and regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words used therein - Where th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tio of these cases cannot be applied to present case." 2.1 Appellant is a provider of the output services. During the course of audit of the records it was observed that appellant have availed Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices/documents having consignee address other than the registered premises of the appellant. Appellant had availed credit of Rs.4,25,582/- on such invoices for the period November, 2010 to September, 2013. 2.2 A demand notice was issued to the appellant seeking to recover the inadmissible credit availed by them along with the interest and penalty. This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Original authority vide his Order-in-Original No.376/Assistant Commissioner/ST/GZB/15-16 dated 29/03/2016 by holding a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services which received by the appellant on the premises not indicated in their ST-2 certificate (registration certificate), can be allowed. 4.3 I find that the issue is no longer res integra and Tribunal has in series of case held that so far as the receipt of input services by the output service provider is not in dispute. The credit cannot be denied merely for the reason that these services were received at the premises other than the registered premises or the invoices against which the credit has been availed while showing the name of service recipient some other address which is not mentioned in the ST-2 certificate. Some of the decisions are referred below:- M/s Allsphere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be, is satisfied that the goods or services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of the account of the receiver, he may allow the CENVAT credit. This proviso also does not state that the premises of the recipient has to be a registered premises in order to avail the Cenvat Credit. Further it gives a discretion to the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner to allow the credit on being satisfied that the goods or services covered by the document have been received and accounted for in the books of the account of the receiver. 5. In the show cause notice, there is no allegation that the input services were not received/utilized by the appellant. So also there is no dispute that such input s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration has been taken. We find that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. (supra) though being delivered in respect of cenvat/modvat credit on the central excise duty it squarely applies to the case in hand." M/s mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. [2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.)], "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 the cenvat credit rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a regis....