M/S. Positive Moves India Consulting ... vs C.S.T.-Service Tax- Delhi

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 99-ST-DLH-2013 dated 28.03.2013 by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), New Delhi].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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?

M/s. Positive Moves India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.S.T.-Service Tax- Delhi .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri S.C. Kamra, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri. V.P. Batra, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 28.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50287/2015-ST(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying Cenvat Credit to them.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is service provider under the category of man Power Recruitment Agency Services having their Head Office at Delhi and Branch Offices are located at Gurgaon, Bombay and Bangalore. The appellant is issuing invoices to their clients for the services rendered from their branch offices as well as from their Head Offices from Head Office only. They are also receiving certain input services in their Head Offices as well as in their branches. The invoices for receiving services at branches are in the name of Branch Offices and at their address only. The appellant took Cenvat Credit on these services at their Head Office. Revenue is of the view that these services have been received by their Branch Offices and they are not centralized registered with the Service Tax Department, therefore they are not entitled to take the Cenvat Credit on the services received by the branches. In these circumstances the proceedings were initiated against the appellant to deny Cenvat Credit. Both the lower authorities held that appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the services received by the branches. Against the said order appellant is before me.

3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Mangalore-2010 (19) S.T.R. 506 (Tri-Bang). Therefore Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. He further submits that although during the impugned period they were not having the centralized registration but later on they took the centralized registration in November 2006. Therefore, there was only technical lapse on their part. In these circumstances, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied.

4. On the other hand Ld. AR opposes the contention of the Ld. Counsel and drew my attention to the impugned order and submits that appellant was not having centralized billing system. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit.

5. Heard the parties. Perused the records and considered the submissions.

6. On perusal of the record I find that all the invoices on services provided to the appellant as well as branches have been issued by the Head Office that is appellant only. Therefore, the argument advanced by the Ld. AR is not acceptable. Further, I find that the appellant is having three branches and no branch is registered with the Service Tax Department as a service provider. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) as they are having centralized billing system and accounting system. Therefore, they are entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the services availed by the branches.

7. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

3

ST/58281/2013-ST(SM)