INDBANK MERCHANT BANKING SERVICES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX
LAWS(CE)-2015-2-10
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 18,2015

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.N. Panda, Member (J) - (1.)THE miscellaneous application filed is to impleading Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai as respondent. Revenue has no objection, for which that is allowed.
(2.)SO far as stay application is concerned, prima facie the case exhibits that there are three disputes before the authority below. The first dispute is relating to non -production of evidence which gave raise to demand of Rs. 73,338/ -. The second dispute is disallowance of CENVAT credit pertaining to branches availed at the head office on the plea of centralized registration. The third dispute is the CENVAT credit taken on the taxi service and mobile phone services availed.
It is the submission of learned consultant that documents are available to resolve the issue concerning the claim of CENVAT credit of Rs. 73,338/ -. Because no evidence were made available to audit at the time of their visit, disallowance was made. In view of such fair submission, appellant should get an opportunity to adduce evidence before the authority for his consideration as to admissibility of the claim. Appellant is entitled to reasonable opportunity of hearing.

(3.)SO far as the second dispute is concerned, it is explained by Revenue that from 1.4.2008, Rule has been amended to allow credits pertaining to the service availed even by the branches for distribution under ISD scheme. But in the present case, the adjudicating authority has recorded that although the appellant sought centralized registration it did not bring to the notice of the authority as to the availment of service at the branches supported by service tax return which were claimed through their head office. Such a confusion created disallowance of claim of Rs. 2,69580/ -. The appellant is therefore granted opportunity to appear before learned adjudicating authority to adduce entire evidence before him to satisfy him that centralized registration had disclosed the receipt of all branches as well as head office and the services claimed thereat suffering service tax have also been disclosed in its return for the satisfaction of the authority. Genuineness of the claim is to be established by assessee. If claim is genuine appellant shall be entitled to credit thereof cause of natural justice to be followed by the adjudicating authority to reach to a proper conclusion.
;


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