Decided on June 18,2015

The Bank Of Tokyo -Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd. Appellant


ASHOK JINDAL, J. - (1.)THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein input service credit has been denied to the appellant on security guards, telephone connections installed at the residence of bank employees and professional charges for professional work. It has been alleged that they have taken cenvat 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 notice during the course of audit, it has been revealed that the appellant has availed Cenvat Credit 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. It is further alleged that the appellant has taken cenvat credit wrongly. As per the notification No. dated 10.9.04, credit of service tax paid on input services used in or in relation to provide output services are allowed to be availed and utilized subject to compliance of other conditions stipulated in the said notification. Both the adjudicating authorities adjudicated the same and denied the cenvat credit to the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me.
(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that during the course of audit, certain clarifications were sought by them and same have been replied to the audit team by their letter dated 23.5.08. Thereafter, they replied to the show cause notice also that they have taken the credit and they have informed about their intention to avail cenvat credit. Both the lower authorities have not given any credence to their contention raised before them for availing cenvat credit. Infect, when their office premises and residential premises of the General Manager in the same premises and they are required to post security guard to their 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, observation made by both the lower authorities are beyond the scope of show cause notice. In these circumstances, she prayed that impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed.

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