Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, New Delhi vs M/S Infocom Network Ltd on 11 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Appeal No. ST/436/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 09/S.Tax/D-II/2012 dated 24.01.2012, by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi, 110003]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, NEW DELHI .Applicants
Vs.
M/s Infocom Network Ltd. .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Ranjan Khanna , DR for the Applicants None for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 11.11.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 55147 /2016-CU(DB) PER Mr. V. Padmanabhan:
The present appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the Order-In-Appeal dated 24.1.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).The assessee renders service falling under the category of online information and data base access or retrieval service. The assessee obtained registration for payment of service tax for a single address where their head office was situated. They also had branch offices all over India from where service tax was provided. The assessee availed CENVAT Credit pertaining to input services received by them by their Head Office as well as various branch offices. They also discharged the service tax liability in respect of the head office as well as branch offices out of the common Cenvat account maintained by them. Revenue took the view that they will not be eligible to avail Cenvat Credit in respect of input services received by them at the various branch offices. Though Show Cause Notice was issued for recovering the Cenvat credit attributable to the branch offices, both the authorities below dropped such demands. Revenue has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that interest will be liable to be paid by the assessee for wrongly availed Cenvat Credit which was utilized for payment of service tax.
2. Heard Shri Ranjan Khanna, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. None appeared for the Respondent.
3. It is not disputed that the assessee has availed Cenvat Credit in respect of input services received by the head office as well as by the branch offices situated in different places. It is also not disputed that the Cenvat credit has been used to discharge service tax liability pertaining to all the above offices. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the lapse on the part of the assessee is of technical nature, not affecting the Revenue in as much as due service tax stands discharged by the assessee. Accordingly, he has absolved the assessee from any contravention of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1944. We are in agreement with the views expressed in the Impugned Order and find no reasons to interfere with the same.
4. In line with the above discussion the impugned order is upheld and Revenues appeal is rejected.
[Opening part of the order pronounce in the open court]
(V. Padmanabhan) (Archana Wadhwa)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
RS
2