SYNDICATE BANK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a PSU unit. They have taken permission from the Committee of Secretaries to contest this matter. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 5,55,31,646/ - being the Cenvat credit availed by them wrongly without producing any document required for taking input credit. The details were examined by the Commissioner and found that the assessee has produced sample copies of the duty paid invoices with regard to few of services and hence, he allowed Cenvat credit to an extent of Rs. 3,28,28,837/ - as per details furnished in Annexure -1 of the impugned order. In so far as the Cenvat credit claimed by them on IT services, Advertising fees, Traveling expenses, electricity charges, share services, audit expenses, brokerage, NSDL up loading, MICR processing, Computer floppy and MICR, Xerox, Folio charge, Repairs and vehicle services, the appellants; were not in a position to produce any invoices for having taken the input credit. The Commissioner has examined the issue in great detail in Para 20 of the impugned order and has denied the credit to an extent of Rs. 2,27,02,809/ -. The learned Counsel argues and points out that there are several branches of the appellants bank and all the branches are maintaining registers with necessary details, but they have not produced all the invoices from various branches for the purpose of satisfying the Commissioner with regard to availment of the input credit. On a specific query from the Bench as to whether all the invoices had been audited and verified and the Chartered Accountants certificate to this effect has been produced before the Commissioner, the learned Counsel submits that the Bank has not done so, although the records have been audited. He submits that the appellants Bank has taken the credit lawfully and that the Bank has not done any act which requires them to deny the credit and to penalize them. He prays for waiver of pre -deposit of the amount. As ultimately the Bench expressed its inability to grant waiver of pre -deposit in the matter, therefore the learned Counsel offers to pre -deposit 50% of the tax amount.

(2.) THE learned SDR strongly opposes the prayer and submits that even after the Tribunal has granted more than one year time, they have not produced an iota of evidence to satisfy the question as to whether they have paid the service tax to avail the input service credit. She submits that since they have not produced any documents in support of their claim, they should pre -deposit the entire amount.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We agree with the contention of the learned SDR. We find that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence to satisfy the Commissioner for having availed input service credit with regard to several items. The Commissioner has taken a very lenient view to allow the Cenvat credit on the basis of sample copies of the duty paid invoices to an extent of Rs. 3,28,28,837/ - as stated in Para 19 of the impugned order. But he was in a helpless position in denying the credit in the absence of evidence. The appellants have not produced any evidence to satisfy the Commissioner for having availed input credit. Hence we are not in a position to grant waiver of pre -deposit in the matter. Even now, the appellants have not produced any evidence in any form. Therefore the appellants should pre -deposit the entire service tax amount of Rs. 2,27,02,809/ - (Rupees Two crore twenty seven lakhs two thousand eight hundred nine only) within a period of three months from today and on such deposit, the pre -deposit of interest and penalty amount stands waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Failure to comply this order will entail dismissal of the appeal. Call on to report compliance on 2nd December 2008.