2013 (12) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gaged in providing various services under the category of "Banking and other Financial services". The said demand comprises of three parts. In the process of rendering such services, the applicant availed Cenvat Credit on various input services at their various Branches as well as in their Head Office. The cenvat credit on such input services have been availed by the Branch offices as well as Head office. However, the entire liability of Service Tax on such input services have been discharged from their head office only. The quantum of cenvat credit availed by each branch has been posted through a software system called 'Finacle'. All the relevant input invoices have been kept at the relevant branch and head offices. The Ld. Advocate submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and at any time. He has submitted that even though, during the course of adjudication, they have offered verification of such documents, and consequently the officers had visited their head office for verification but did not verify the same seeing the volume. Regarding the payment of Rs.1.79 crores against the wrong accounting code/head, the Ld. Chartered Accountant referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise & Customs, GOA reported in wherein this Tribunal has held that payment under wrong Head would not result on payment of Service Tax again by the assessee. The Ld. Chartered Accountant also placed a letter issued by the Department dated 6/8/2013 whereby ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 12.66 crores was denied on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce the relevant input service invoices on which credit had been availed by their head office as well as various branches. On the other hand, the appellant claimed that they were in possession of all documents and ready to produce all input invoices to get it scrutinized/examined by the Department. It is their submission that even though the Department made attempts for verification of these documents but due to its volume, the same could not be verified. The Ld. Special Counsel also expressed his opinion that a methodology has to be devised by both the Department as well as the appellant whereby the impasse could be resolved. We find force in the argument of t....