TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appellants are practicing Chartered Accountants. 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f service tax, the liability of which was reimbursed 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 liabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dently and the transactions between the said two entities are on a principal to principal basis. Consequently, any distribution of input credit by DHS to 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 relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the notice of the department. No assessee is required to furnish any information which is not specified in the form of ST-3 returns prescribed and in the ST-3 returns, there is no column for furnishing the present 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: 20....