Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions ... vs Commissioner Of Central ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.18-2010 dated 13/05/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), BANGALORE ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

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?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

ADECCO FLEXIONE WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS LTD SAI DEEP SHRINIDHI, NO.2, WIND TUNNEL ROAD, OFF OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-LTU NULL 100 FT RING ROAD JSS TOWERS, BANASHANKARI-III STAGE, BANGALORE, - 560085 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 02/01/2015

Date of Decision: 02/01/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20030 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The miscellaneous application is for extension of stay and the same is dismissed as infructuous since the appeal itself is being taken up for disposal.

2. After hearing both the sides, I find that credit of Rs.6,31,407/- in respect of service tax paid by the appellant to his landlord stands denied to him on the ground that landlord had taken the registration subsequently on 17/09/2007 and the credit of tax paid to the landlord prior to obtaining the registration would not be available to him. Another amount of Rs.83,044/- stands denied to the appellant on the ground that the invoices of the service provider did not contain the registration number.

3. Apart from the above, there is no other allegation that the appellant had not paid the service tax either to the landlord or to the service provider. In fact, it stands explained by the learned advocate that landlord raised the debit notes for the service tax subsequently as he was not registered during the relevant period but collected the service tax after registration, which stands paid by the appellant.

4. An assessee who has paid the service tax to the service provider, is entitled to avail the credit of the same, without finding whether such service tax paid by him to the service provider stands further deposited by him to the exchequer. It is neither possible nor practicable for any service recipient to verify the fact of payment of service tax by the service provider. If the Revenue is of the view that the service provider has not deposited the service tax collected by him from his customers, the remedy lies at the end of the service provider and not at the end of the service recipient. Apart from that, I find that in the present case, the Revenue has not made any verifications at the end of the service provider to find out as to whether the service tax has actually been deposited by them or not. There is neither any allegation much less any evidence to that effect.

5. In view of the above, I find no justifiable reasons to deny the credit of the service tax to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja.