9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Following decision in assessee's own previous case [2014 (1) TMI 622 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - Stay granted. - ST/689/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2013 - P K Das And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, SDR PER : Mathew John There is a delay of four days in filing this appeal. After hearing both sides on the matter, we found it proper to condone the delay. Accordingly, COD application is allowed. 2. The applicant is engaged in the business of providing various types of services in the field of information technology. Their business is split into 16 Strategic Business Units (SBUs). According to them, the services provided by one of the SBUs i.e., SBU-58, dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed this appeal along with stay application. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the previous year, they had already given the option under Rule 6 (3A) and they have been operating under the said provisions and the rule does not require fresh submission of any letter every year. Nevertheless, while filing the return for Aprl.10 to Sept.'10, they gave a declaration to make the information available for scrutiny of the return. This does not imply that they had not opted for Rule 6 (3A) for the period prior to filing of the letter. He further points out that in the impugned order, the entire credit attributable to common input services has been denied whereas, major p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been reversing the proportionate credit every month from Apr.'10 till Sept.'10. Thus by their inaction they had indicated that they were not availing benefits of Rule 6(3A). They reversed credit, that too according to their calculation only, at the time of filing of the return for the said period and thus the applicant had not exercised the option in writing and also not acted in accordance with such option. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper. He submits that in such circumstances the declaration dated 14.10.2010 could not have retrospective effect. 6. He further reiterated the argument that the option under Rule 6 (3A) will apply for the entire input services if taken together and not after splitti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
