H & R JOHNSON (INDIA) Vs. CCE, RAIGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. US/787/RGD/2012, dated 19 -11 -2012. Heard both sides and perused the records.

(2.) I find, both the lower authorities misunderstood the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel that there is no time limit for availing Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on the services rendered by the service provider during the relevant period. There is no dispute that the service provider rendered the services during 2005 -2006. It is seen from the list of invoices as produced by the appellant at page No. 17 that the services availed from April 2005 -2006 and invoices are also raised during the same period. It is also undisputed that the appellant had produced the Service Tax returns filed by the service provider along with TR6 challan indicating discharge of Service Tax liability on the invoices raised during 2005 -2006.

(3.) IN my considered view both the lower authorities should have got the details verified from the concerned range of the service provider, if in doubt, instead of holding against the appellant. As regards the surrendering of licence by the Radhika Engineering, the service provider, I find that the Service Tax registration certificate was surrendered on 16 -4 -2007 for the services rendered on 2005 -2006 after Service Tax liability has been discharged. In my view if the Service Tax liability has not been discharged by the registered unit, Revenue will not accept surrendering the registration certificate. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I have to hold that the Service Tax paid by the service provider during 2005 -2006, though the appellant has availed Cenvat credit belatedly which is well within the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.