CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH

Court No. IV

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51961 OF 2022

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 27(SM)ST/JPR/2022 dated 11.02.2022

passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & GST, Jaipur]

M/S. NAGANO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Plot No. SP-2, 93 A Majrakath,

Japanese Investor Zone.

Neemrana, Distt Alwar-301705(Raj)

APPELLANT

Vs.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

AND CGST, NCRB

Statue circle, Jaipur.

RESPONDENT

Appearance:

Ms. Shikha Jain and Shri Ikesh, Chartered Accountants for the Appellant

[Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : January 02, 2023

Date of Decision : January 02, 2023

FINAL ORDER No. 50034 /2023

PER DR. RACHNA GUPTA

Present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal

No. 27/2022 dated 11.02.2022. The facts, in brief, relevant for

the present adjudication are that-

The appellant herein is engaged in providing the consulting

service of man power agency and legal assistance. For the later,

they were liable for service tax under reverse charge mechanism.

During the period June 2016 to March, 2017, they had provided

the said service and since immediately after the period the CGST

2017 Act came into existence that the appellant carried forward

ST/51961/2022

2

the Cenvat Credit amount of Rs. 7,49,359/- in TRAN I as was

filed by them. However, the department alleged the said Cenvat

credit as being wrongly availed on the ground that the same was

availed prior taking the registration and that it was availed on

improper document i.e. on such invoices which were not in the

name of registered address. As such, the violation of Rule 9 of

Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 4(8) of Service Tax Rules,

1994 was alleged against the appellant vide the SCN No. 4241

dated 12.12.2019 proposing the denial of aforesaid amount as

Cenvat credit. The proposal has been confirmed vide Order-in-

Original No. 206/2020-21 dated 21.01.2021. The order has been

upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the aforementioned

Order-in-Appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this

Tribunal.

2. I have heard Chartered Accountant Ms Skhikha Jain, the

learned authorised representative for the appellant and Shri

Mahesh Bhardwaj, learned Departmental Representative for the

department.

3. The authorised representative has submitted that the

appellant had provided the taxable service. Though for the

period in question, the appellant had not got its registration

certificate but the services were duly provided with. All valid

documents were generated including that of invoices. The

invoices had all requisite particulars as are required under Rule

9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, except that the registration was

not there. Learned Authorised Representative also brought to

the notice that few of the invoices had a different address of

Sector 40, Gurgaon Road. It is mentioned that the appellant got

the said premises on license basis for sometime. The license fee

agreement was duly executed between the appellant and the

licenser M/s. Quad Business Solutions Private Limited. It is

mentioned that during the relevant period the appellant was

existing at the said premises for providing the taxable service.

ST/51961/2022

3

Learned representative emphasized that there is no mandate for

the availment of Cenvat credit that the service provider shall be

mandatorily to be registered. Finally, impressing upon that the

credit has been availed on the documentation containing all the

relevant particulars. The premises mentioned therein though

were not registered at the time but same cannot be a ground for

denial of substantial benefit as that of Cenvat credit. She has

reli