M/S Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs Commissioner, Ce & St (Ltu), Mumbai

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV

APPEAL NO. ST/295, 296 & 297/12

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/15 to 17/LTU/MUM/2012 dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)

=====================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=====================================================

M/s SBI Capital Markets Ltd.

: Appellant Versus

Commissioner, CE & ST (LTU), Mumbai : Respondent

Appearance Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate with Shri Abhijit Singh, Advocate : For Appellant

Shri B.K. Iyer, Supdt. (A.R.)

: For Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : 08.04.2015 Date of Decision: 08.04.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: Anil Choudhary:

The appellant SBI Capital Markets Ltd. is in the business of rendering consultancy services in the area of mergers, acquisitions, issue management, project appraisals, merchant banking, etc. The appellant is registered under service tax provisions for the category of service Banking and Financial Services and Business Auxiliary Services. During the period in dispute, the appellants have availed CENVAT credit on various input services like travelling service, advertising agency service, brokerage, real estate agent service, insurance paid on behalf of the staff, mediclaim paid on behalf of staff, entertainment service, hiring of indoor plants, canteen service, lift maintenance service, design service and club service etc. Different show-cause notices, on the same issue, for different periods proposing to disallow the CENVAT credit availed, were issued to the appellant as the revenue felt that the said services have got no nexus with the output service of the appellants. The details are as follows:-

Sr. No. Appeal No. Order-in-Appeal No. Period Covered Amount involved 1 ST/295/12 YDB/15 to 17/LTU/MUM/2012 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008 291,576 2 ST/297/12 YDB/15 to 17/LTU/MUM/2012 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 52,450 3 ST/296/12 YDB/15 to 17/LTU/MUM/2012 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2009 34,282 Total 3,78,308

2. On perusal of the show-cause notice, I find that input service in respect of which credit have been proposed to be denied, is without giving any break up of the amount attributable to each service. Only a total amount is mentioned which is proposed to be disallowed. At the end of the show-cause notice, it is mentioned that the documents which are relied upon are (i) audit report and (ii) assessees reply to the audit report.

3. Having heard the parties, and upon perusal of the impugned Order-in-Appeal and the Order-in-Original, I find that the whole proceedings are vitiated for want of proper show-cause notice. I find that the show-cause notice is vague as it does not give the break up of the amount under each head of input service proposed to be disallowed. Further, although the show-cause notice refers to the audit report and the assessees reply to it, nowhere in the show-cause notice, neither the allegation of the audit has been discussed nor the reply of the appellant thereto and as to why the amount under the particular head is proposed to be disallowed. Also, no reason as to why the said services, are not input service, flows from the show-cause notice. Hence, I hold that the show-cause notices are vague, thereby vitiating the impugned order. Thus the impugned order is set aside.

4. The appeals are allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential benefit, if any.

(Pronounced in open Court)

(Anil Choudhary)

Member (Judicial)

Sp

3