2024 (5) TMI 1223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d premises. Rs.7,18,070/-. 5.3 I proceed with point no.(a)- CENVAT credit availed after expiry of six months from the date of issue of invoices- 5.3.1 I find that Rule 4 of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 (Rules) deals with the conditions for allowing CENVAT credit. Vide notification no.21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014, the following insertions have been made in the said rule. "In the said rules, in rule 4, - (a) in sub-rule (1), after the second proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted with effect from first day of September 2014, namely: Provided also that the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall not take CENVAT credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 9.", 5.3.2 Thus Rule 4 of the CCR 2004, clearly provides that, w.e.f 01.09.2014, credit of input/input services cannot be availed after expiry of six months from the date of issue of invoices/documents as specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 9. 5.3.3 1 find that in the instant case, it has been alleged that the appellant has taken cenvat credit after expiry of six months from the date of invoices. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facturer will be eligible for taking cenvat credit of service tax paid on such a service even if the service is received outside the premises as the Rule 3 of CCR 2004, does not prescribe that the input services has to be received at the registered premises only. 5.5.3 I further observe that once the service qualifies as 'input service' independently or is specified in the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service for the provision of the output service, the credit of the same is admissible and there is no condition that the same has to be received within the registered premises of output service provider/manufacturer. A service provider/manufacturer can avail cenvat credit of service tax paid on various input services as long as the said services are used by the service provider for providing the output service or manufacturer in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and the place where the input service, has been received by the output service provider/manufacturer is not relevant for determining the availability of credit on such input service. 5.5.4 I place reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l to the appellant by modifying the Order-in-Original No.10/DC/Div-VI/N/2018-19 dated 15/06/2018 to the above extent." 2.1 Appellant has filed a refund claim in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27 of 2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 for the quarter October, 2014 to December, 2014 for Rs.15,95,542/-. 2.2 After following the due process adjudicating authority vide his Order-in-Original No.10/DC/D-VI/N/2018-19 dated 15.06.2018 sanctioned the refund claim to the tune of Rs.1,12,171/- and rejected the refund claim of Rs.14,83,371/- on the following grounds:- a. Cenvat credit availed after expiry of six months from the issue of invoices- Rs.729970/- b. Cenvat credit on lunch and dinner charges, Rs.25,288/- and pantry and mobile charges Rs.10,043/- are not covered under input services. c. Inadmissible Cenvat credit taken on invoices addressed to the unregistered premises, Rs.7,18,070/-. that accumulated Cenvat credit which is claimed as refund was taken by the appellant for stipulated period of six months from the date of issue of invoices in respect of services providers namely M/s Star Catalyst, M/s Arpit Chaurasia an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d all these decisions in the order but sad enough, did not refer to the same in the operative portion of his order. Very cryptically, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal by observing that since the law was amended and time limit of six months was laid, the credit availed after the period of six months from the date of the invoice is not available to the assessee. We really fail to appreciate the above conclusion drawn by Commissioner (Appeals) without even whispering about the applicability of various decisions referred to and relied upon by the appellant which clearly covers the issue in their favour. This attitude of Commissioner (Appeals) reflects on his predetermined mind to reject the appeals in a mechanical manner, thus putting the litigant into difficulty, apart from the increasing the burden and pendency of litigation at the higher level. 5. Having expressed our anguish, we note that the issue is no more res Integra. Reliance can be placed to the following decisions; (i) Indian Potash Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central GST, Meerut [2018 (10) TMI 1367-CESTAT Allahabad] (ii) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central ....