TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the show cause notice is that the corporate office, which is a separate registrant and also as an ISD (although part of the same corporation) which is registered in Gurgaon (Haryana) had wrongly taken CENVAT credit and distributed it to their branch office in Secunderabad. Therefore, if these allegations are true, the demand, if any, and penalties, if any, is imposable on the corporate office. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/1001/2009 - A/30033/2019 - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Dy. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct as they pertain to trading by their corporate office and hence not available as per Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (2) The appellant is not eligible to take credit on consultancy charges and insurance charges as these were exclusively used for trading activities. (3) The credit of business expenditure incurred by the appellant has sought to be denied on the ground that they do not qualify as input services. 3. The show cause notice further alleged that they their corporate office has erred in transferring their input service credit as it should not have, at any point of time, exceeded 20% of the output service tax liability of the company. Show cause notice therefore proposed to demand CENVAT credit, wrongly availed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is time barred as the relevant period is April, 2005 to March, 2008 while the show cause notice was issued on 06.02.2009. There has been no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant as all relevant information has been furnished in their returns as required under the law. (d) The entire issue involves a bona fide interpretation of law and they should not be penalised on this account. 5. Learned departmental representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and asserts that the appellant and their corporate office are essentially the same entity, although, registered as two different registrants under the service tax and therefore, they should have knowledge of the credit transferred by their head office as ISD. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the corporate office, which is a separate registrant and also as an ISD (although part of the same corporation) which is registered in Gurgaon (Haryana) had wrongly taken CENVAT credit and distributed it to their branch office in Secunderabad. Therefore, if these allegations are true, the demand, if any, and penalties, if any, is imposable on the corporate office. Although, the appellant and their corporate office are part of the same legal entity, it is inconceivable that their branch office in Secunderabad who have received credit through ISD invoices from their corporate office has full knowledge of how the credit was availed by their corporate office and how it was transferred to their various branch offices across the country. As f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
