2017 (6) TMI 911

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....countants. They share premises with another occupant Deloitte Haskins & Sells (DHS for short). The expenses like AMC, courier, security, rent and office management (i.e., services which are commonly received by them) are shared by them on proportionate basis. This is done by M/s. DHS first paying for such services and then M/s. DHS raising a proportionate-value invoice upon the appellant. CENVAT Credit is then availed by the appellant on such invoice. The contention of the Department is that M/s. DHS neither a provider of services such as courier, renting, office management, etc., (they are Chartered Accountants) nor are they registered as input service distributors according to service tax law. Hence, the Department is of the view that suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed by the appellant to DHS. He further submitted that the entire scheme of arrangement between the DHS and the appellant is that of the cost sharing/reimbursement arrangement. The service provider raised a consolidated invoices on the services provided to DHS. There is no dispute that the services are being received by the appellant too. For administrative convenience, DHS first pays the service provider the amount indicated in the invoices raised by the service provider and thereafter, a separate invoice is raised on the appellant for its share of expenses. He further submitted that this arrangement i.e., of cost sharing during the disputed period (February 2006 to March 2010) was not liable to service tax and for this submission, he reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the appellant shall amount to violation of Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 in terms of which the input credit be distributed only among the unit of ISD and not to a different or a separate legal entity. It is also submitted that it is a settled position that service tax when collected and paid to the Government by the service provider, even if not under a particular accounting code, it is to be treated as an acceptable payment of service tax. The appellant relies on the department s own Circular No.58/07/2003 dated 20.5.2003 to support his contention. Further, the appellant relies on the following decisions wherein it has been held that payment of service tax under an incorrect accounting code shall not invalidate the payment of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent case disputed information to the department and therefore, furnishing the said information was not necessary. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot be accused of suppressing any fact from the department and hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. For this submission, he relied upon following decisions: * Batliboi & Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat: 2000 (117) ELT 460 (Tribunal) * Kaylong Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2003 (160) ELT 524 (Tri.-Del.) * Sipani Fibres Ltd. vs. CCE: 2007 (212) ELT 374 (Tri.-Bang.) * Hasan Hajee & Co. vs. CCE: 2007 (50) STR 397 (Tri.-Bang.) * Alfa Auto Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (262) ELT 573 (Tri.-Del.) * CCE vs. Global Alloys (P) Ltd.: 2010 (262) ELT 686 (Tri.-Del.) * Suryava....