TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demands have been confirmed under four different categories as under: S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Demand of inadmissible Cenvat credit - Credit availed prior to registration Rs.1,37,12,169/- 2. Demand of service tax paid using the above alleged wrong credit Rs.84,68,189/- 3. Demand of service tax on IPR services Rs.19,16,652/- 4. Demand of service tax on Technical inspection & certification services Rs.3,25,902/- Total Rs.2,44,22,912/- 3. Insofar as the issues at S.No.1 & 2 are concerned, the main thrust of the department is that the appellant had taken the Cenvat credit of Rs.1,37,12,169/- on various input services for providing taxable Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) in respect of input/input service credit pertaining to period April, 2007 to September, 2007, which got reflected for the first time in the ST3 return filed on 15.06.2009. It was also noted by the department that the appellants were having service tax registration only under the category of 'Transport of goods by road service' and that too under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) and were not having any registration for providing any output service in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CCR. He has relied on the following judgments: a) Reliance HR Services Pvt Ltd Vs Asst. CST, New Delhi [2023 (5) TMI 895 - CESTAT New Delhi] b) TATA Business Support Services Ltd Vs CST, Mumbai-VII [2021 (44) GSTL 169 (Tri-Mumbai)] c) Rajender Kumar & Associates Vs CST, Delhi-II [2021 (45) GSTL 184 (Tri-Del)] 5. We find that the cited judgments have examined the issue whether person can take credit even before the registration or otherwise. We find that keeping in view the statutory provisions as prevailing during the material time and holding that there is no bar as such for not taking credit prior to registration, it was held that taking of credit at a later date was not improper. 6. In the case of Reliance HR Services Pvt Ltd Vs Asst. CST, New Delhi(supra), the Coordinate Bench examined the issue of the eligibility of Cenvat credit in respect of services received prior to registration taking into account the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in the case of TATA Business Support Services Ltd Vs CST, Mumbai-VII (supra), mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.)], Rajender Kumar & Associates Vs CST, Delhi-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal Mumbai in the case of Tata Business Support Services Ltd. v. Commr. of S.T-VII, Mumbai 2021 (44) G.S.T.L. 169 (Tri.-Mumbai) observed that: "9. There could be no clearer exposition of the legal provision that militates against the ground on which proceedings were initiated against the appellant herein. It was open to the jurisdictional officials to establish that the impugned services were not =input service' within the meaning of the Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is not for the provider of 'output service' to satisfy the jurisdictional official but for the jurisdictional official, on the basis of ascertainment, to satisfy itself on the deployment of such service and to initiate proceedings in the absence of such satisfaction. Neither does the show cause notice adduce any evidence of that and nor did the jurisdictional official do so under the latitude afforded by the direction in the remand order of the Tribunal. The sweeping assertion of non-existence merely owing to non-registration is not dissimilar to the symbolic discountenancing by Pontius Pilate that relegated him to a mere footnote in history. In the absence of express articulation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned, the allegation is that the appellants had received certain IPR services from Zeneca Lambda BV, Netherlands on which they had paid royalty of 5% net of tax of their Explant sale price. The main submission in this regard is that the adjudicating authority has himself held that service tax liability in respect of any services provided by a non-resident or a person located outside India to a recipient in India would arise only w.e.f. 18.04.2006. The department has not produced any evidence in support that the services were rendered post 18.04.2006. It was also submitted that the said demand has been raised based on the balance sheet of the appellants for the Financial Year 2004-05 and 2005-06 only, which would support the plea of appellant that the services were provided prior to 18.04.2006. He has relied on various judgments including Syniverse Mobile Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CCCE & ST, Hyderabad-IV [2023 (6) TMI 463 - CESTAT Hyderabad], wherein it was held that service tax liability on RCM basis will arise for the importer of service only from 18.04.2006, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs UOI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vity. They have relied on various case laws including AT & Co. Vs CST, Delhi [2017 (49) STR 574 (TriDel)]. 11. We have perused the SCN and we find that nowhere the department has said that appellants were providing or issuing any certificate pursuant their technical advice/inspection, etc. The department has relied on clause 8(1) of the agreement entered into by the appellant with one Shri T. Nageswar Rao, which provides for certain facilities to the appellant in relation to assessing the progress of cultivation and production of hybrid seeds and to ascertain and verify whether the grower has followed the advice rendered by the appellant pursuant to the provisions of the agreement. We find that the adjudicating authority has first of all not analysed the scope of the heading under section 65(105)(zzi), which essentially covers that service has to be provided by a technical inspection and certification agency. There is no evidence to the suggest that they were 'technical inspection and certification agency' and especially so when no certificates were being issued based on their advice to the farmers. Therefore, merely because they were providing certain advice without any certifi....