9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit wrongly on these services. Consequently, the demand of duty was raised along with interest and penalty was also imposed by invoking extended period of limitation. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is a banking company having their office in Japan Tokyo. They are having back up office in India for collecting data etc. and providing the same to head office. Therefore, they have their back up office in Parliament Street Jeevan Vihar Building. In their back up office they are receiving the services of security guard, telephone and professional and for providing professional work. It is also a fact that in the premises of their back up office, the General Manager of the Bank is also residing. It is alleged in the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir back up office as per RBI guidelines, they are entitled to take cenvat credit. And service fees paid to the professionals, both the lower authorities have denied the cenvat credit on the premises that appellant has not paid the service tax nor invoices were produced before the authorities below but audit team has examined the analysis and thereafter they came to know that appellant has availed cenvat credit on services of professional fee charges like income tax ROC, Provident Fund, arranging accommodation of various employees, for VRS etc. If the invoices were asked for by both the lower authorities, the appellant could have provided to them. It was not asked from the appellant to provide such invoices. In these circumstances, observa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Audit conducted at the premises of the appellant. In the show cause notice, the only allegation against the appellant is that they have taken the cenvat credit on the services of security guards, telephone connections installed at the residences of the employees of the Bank, professional charges paid to the different professional representing cases before Income tax, ROC, provident fund, arranging accommodation for employees, VRS etc. The amount of service tax on these services is wrongly availed as cenvat credit as per notification No. 23/04 as they have not used in or in relation to output services. On plain reading of the show cause notice, it is clear that fees paid to the consultant representative by the appellant has availed servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the learned AR is not acceptable as these are not the charges in the show cause notice and nobody can go beyond the scope of show cause notice at appellate stage. Further, the case law relied upon by learned AR have no relevance to the facts of this case as in that case the security services were admittedly provided at the residence of employee. But in this case, security service has been provided mainly to the back up office of the appellant. Therefore, said case law does not have any relevance to the said facts of this case. 8. As discussed above, appellant has availed input service disputed in this case has been availed for providing output service. Therefore, appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit. 9. With these terms, I do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
