TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1050
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 51. I order recovery of the interest at appropriate rate from the due date, on the amount confirmed at para 50 above, from M/s. Media Edge CIA (India) Pvt. Ltd., under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; 52. I impose penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 on M/s. Media Edge CIA (India) Pvt. Ltd. for their failure to pay Service Tax for the period from 01.06.2006 to 09.05.2008 at the rate of 2% per month, on the Service Tax liability not discharged for the period 01.06.2006 to 09.05.2008, subject to a maximum of Service Tax not paid for the period up to 09.05.2008. I do not impose any penalty on the noticee under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to pay Service Tax for the period from 10.05.2008 onwards. 53. I impose penalty of Rs. 6,17,37,765/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventeen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five only), on M/s. Media Edge CIA (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, under the provisions of Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as applicable for the relevant period, read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994." 2.1 The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vat Credit should not be disallowed and recovered under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the said Act by invoking extended period of limitation. ii) Interest should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of Section 75 of the said Act. iii) Penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, should not be imposed upon them for failure to pay the Service Tax, in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the said Act read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994; iv) Penalty under Section 78, read with rule 15(3) of the Central Credit Rule, 2004 of the said Act should not be imposed upon them for deliberately suppressing of facts with the intention to evade payment of Service Tax." 2.3 The matter was adjudicated as per the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. We have heard Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for the appellant and Shri Nitin Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative, for the Revenue. Arguing for the appellant, learned counsel submits that - • The issue involved in the matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on behalf of the appellant draws our attention to the provisions of Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. It is his submission that Rule 4(2) very clearly contemplates that where there is centralized billing or centralized accounting system in respect of any services, the assessee may at his option register the said premises or offices from where centralized billing or centralized accounting system are located. It is his submission that the appellant herein had taken Service tax registration with the authorities, on the ground that they have got centralized accounting system and centralized billing from the address at Manipal. He would also draw our attention to Sub- Rule 4(9) and also to the definition of input service in the Cenvat Credit Rules. Para3. He would submit that in an identical situation in respect of central excise duty on which credit was availed, the Tribunal in the case of Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. [1998 (102) E.L.T. 466] has allowed the credit of the duty paid on the basis of the invoices which were addressed to the branch offices but the goods were consumed in factory premi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such person liable for paying Service tax, and has centralised billing system or centralised accounting system in respect of suck service, and such centralised billing or centralised accounting systems are located in one or more premises, he may, at his option, register such premises or offices from where centralised billing or centralised accounting systems are located." It can be seen from the above reproduced sub- rule, that an option is given to an assessee to register the premises from where centralized billing or centralized accounting systems are located. We find from the records that there is no dispute in this case that the appellants' office at Manipal is the centralized billing and accounting systems office. If that be so, registration taken by the appellant is in accordance with the rules. Para 7. If a person is discharging Service tax liability from his registered premises, the benefit of Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid by the service providers cannot be denied to the appellant, only on the ground that the said invoices are in the name of branch offices. There is no dispute that the branch offices are not registered with the Service ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....though in the column of 'Credit utilised', they have indicated the utilization of credit in each of the Return for every month. Undisputedly, the show cause notice has been issued to them for denial of the credit taken., whereas the appellant has summarized the utilization of the credit as not the credit taken. They have not substantiated their claim by ST-3 Returns to the effect that they have not taken the credit by producing the relevant cenvat credit register. The Commissioner has in para 41 of the impugned order observed as follows:- "41. Further, the noticee had disputed the amount of credit availed by them as being Rs. 5,28,38,420/- only, instead of Rs. 6,17,37,763/- as demanded in the Show Cause Notice dated 07/10.10.2011, by claiming that Rs. 88,99,343/- was not considered by them as credit availed at all. The reasons attributed for such difference in quantum of credit availment were that (i) invoices where vendor payments are made after 31.12.2008; (ii) missing invoices not verified by them (iii) opening balance as on 01.04.2006; (iv) invoices issued to another legal entity (v) credit notes issued to vendors and (vi) payment not made to vendors were not considere....