Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
Facts
The Appellants had bought duty paid capital goods and subsequently availed CENVAT credit for the same. However, it was registered as service receiver when the capital goods were bought. Therefore, the adjudicating authority disallowed the CENVAT with respect to the same. Subsequently the Appellants amended its registration as Service provider on a later date. With respect to some capital goods procured by the assessee, the assessee had not taken any CENVAT credit in its first year and had taken full CENVAT credit in the second/subsequent years. The adjudicating authorities levied interest and penalties stating that CENVAT credit was taken wrongly.
Held
It was observed that in various judgments, Tribunals have allowed CENVAT credit for those assessees who were not registered with the service tax department at all. However, in the present case, the Appellants were at least registered as a service recipient. Therefore, there is no reason why credit in the present case be not allowed. Further, it was observed that with respect to CENVAT credit of capital goods, provision of Rule 4(2) of CCR allows an assessee to avail 50% of CENVAT in the first year and balance CENVAT in the subsequent years. Hence, if no credit has been taken in the first year at all, the assessee can avail 100% CENVAT in subsequent years. Therefore appeal was allowed.