2019 (1) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h office in Secunderabad is registered separately as an entity under service tax and so is their corporate office at Gurgaon. Both filed ST-3 returns to their corresponding Commissionerates. The corporate office at Gurgaon is engaged both in providing services as well as in supply of equipment (trading) which is an exempted service. They discharged service tax under category of Consulting Engineer Services, Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services and Management, Maintenance & Repair services etc. The corporate office is also registered as input service distributors (ISD) and distributes credit which they received among their branch offices and locations across the country including the appellant herein. The appellant herein is not e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Godfrey Philips India Pvt Ltd [2009 (239) ELT 323 (Tri-Ahmd)] (b) A corporate office is registered under various services and is also engaged in trading activity but there is no exempted service provided in the branch office in Secunderabad. The entire demand was on the basis of audit objection which, if any, should have been taken up with the corporate office. (c) The allegation in the show cause notice is that the credit has been used in excess of 20% of service tax liability in violation of Rule 6(3) of the CCR as applicable during the relevant period. However, this limit was subsequently removed and CBEC vide its circular 137/72/2008-CX 4 dated 21.11.2008 clarified that it was only th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring, Real estate agent services etc., distributed by their corporate office are in no way connected to the provision of output service of the appellant at Secunderabad. Regarding limitation, he asserts that in terms of Rule 9(5) and 9(6) of CCR, 2004 "the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit shall lie upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit". In this case, it is incumbent upon the appellant to have ensured that the credit was taken especially so when the credit was approved by their own corporate office. Therefore, the demand as well as the penalties is sustainable. 6. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. There is nothing in the allegations tha....