Decided on January 27,2015

Deloitte Haskins And Sells Appellant


P.S.PRUTHI, J. - (1.)THE present appeals have been filed against Order -in -Original No. 06/BR -06/ST/Th -I/2010, dated 29 -1 -2010 & Order -in -Original No. 07/BR -07/ST/Th -I/2010, dated 29 -1 -2010 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai -I.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells is a firm providing services of practising Chartered Accountants and Management Consultancy Services to clients in India and abroad. The appellants were operating from the following locations, each with a separate Service Tax registration number, and the accounting operations were carried out from Worli address. During the period April -September, 2006 a demand of Rs. 1,92,10,120/ - was raised for wrong availment Cenvat credit while providing exempted services as well as taxable services and such availment is in violation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They did not maintain separate records for the exempted and taxable services in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, as per Rule 6(3)(c) they could utilise credit only to the extent not exceeding 20% of the amount of Service tax payable on output services. They also availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 31,25,737/ - wrongly on input services on invoices raised on the registered unit at Worli whereas the credit was taken in another registered unit at Mafatlal House, Mumbai. Similarly for the period October, 2006 to March, 2007 they provided exempted and taxable services without maintaining separate records. Thus they were required to pay Rs. 2,78,23,485/ - in terms of Rule 6(3)(c). They also availed Cenvat credit at premises other than the premises mentioned in the invoices to the extent of Rs. 5,65,600/ -. Two show -cause notices were issued culminating in the Orders dated 29 -1 -2010. In their defence, the appellant stated that the exempted services shown in ST -3 returns were actually the services rendered prior to 1 -3 -2006 when Notification No. , dated 16 -10 -1998 exempting all services provided by Chartered Accountants, except a few services, was in existence. The same was withdrawn vide Notification No. , dated 1 -3 -2006. However, the billings for the exempted services were raised subsequently. It was also contended that appellants had not rendered any exempted services after 1 -3 -2006 nor it had claimed any benefit under Notification No. , dated 13 -7 -2006 which provided exemption to some services provided by Chartered Accountants or under Notification No. , dated 31 -3 -2004 which provided exemption to services provided to SEZs. Hence they were not required to maintain separate accounts in respect of input services received for providing taxable & exempted services and were entitled to utilize the full Cenvat credit. Regarding the wrong availment of Cenvat credit, it was contended that that it was merely a procedural defect that the input invoices were raised on the Worli address by the input service providers, although input services were received and consumed by the unit at Mafatlal House; therefore, Cenvat credit cannot be denied on this account.
2.1 The Commissioner adjudicated the case and confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,92,10,120/ - and Rs. 31,25,737/ - vide Order -in -Original dated 29 -1 -2010 relating to the period April -September, 2006. He also confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,78,23,485/ - and Rs. 5,65,600/ - vide Order -in -Original relating to the period October, 2006 - March, 2007 He also imposed penalties under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and under Rule 15(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in the first case and penalties under Section 76 under Rule 15(4) in second case.

(3.)HEARD both sides.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.