2013 (4) TMI 153 - AT - Service Tax

Scope of input services Rule 2(l) - Renting of Immovable Property Services - held that - We do not, prima facie , agree with the submission of the learned counsel that the inputs like cement, iron and steel, tiles, marbles, granite, etc. which were used in the construction of the buildings can be treated as inputs in relation to the Renting of Immovable Property Services . They may qualify to be input for earlier stages and not for the purpose of the impugned output service. - Stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of credit availed and utilized for construction-related services and materials.
2. Interpretation of the definition of input service.
3. Nexus between input services and output services.
4. Financial hardship plea for pre-deposit.

Eligibility of Credit for Construction-related Services and Materials:
The appellant, engaged in various construction services, claimed credit for services and materials used in constructing buildings rented out to third parties. The Commissioner disallowed credits of Rs.13.75 crores and Rs.19.6 crores for specific periods, leading to demands, interest, and penalties. The appellant argued that services and materials used in building construction should be treated as input services, citing legal precedents and the direct nexus between input services and output services.

Interpretation of the Definition of Input Service:
The appellant sought waiver of predeposit based on the definition of input service, claiming that services utilized in setting up the premises of the service provider should be considered as input services eligible for credit. They also argued that duty paid on inputs for building construction should qualify for CENVAT credit. Legal references were made to support the interpretation of terms like 'setting up of the premises of the service provider.'

Nexus Between Input Services and Output Services:
The Commissioner contended that buildings given on rent cannot be considered as premises of the service provider, questioning the direct nexus between input services and output services. It was argued that contractors involved in building construction were providing 'Commercial Construction Service,' which differed from the appellant's output services. The Tribunal analyzed the concept of nexus and differentiated between inputs for earlier stages and those relevant to the impugned output service.

Financial Hardship Plea for Pre-deposit:
The appellant pleaded financial hardship due to challenges in the Construction Industry but did not provide evidence. Despite this, the Tribunal considered the plea in ordering a pre-deposit of Rs.7 crores out of the total demand of Rs.33 crores, with a deadline for compliance. The remaining dues were waived, and recovery was stayed pending appeal disposal, taking into account the financial circumstances presented.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of credit eligibility, interpretation of input services, nexus between input and output services, and the consideration of financial hardship in the pre-deposit decision.