2013 (7) TMI 629 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax output services - assessee were having Central Registration number which shows address of premises on which services pertaining to invoices are taken - there is no dispute that lease agreement of Hitech City is with HCL Delhi and invoice in question are also in name of HCL, Delhi and provider of output services is also HCL Delhi - there was no reason to deny credit and subsequently refund of credit to the assessee. credit of service tax - Canteen Services - Held that - From the invoice it cannot be concluded that food/meal/snack were consumed within premises there was not any infirmity in finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of Canteen Services as stated in CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - credit in respect of Canteen Service is not admissible if employees have been charged for canteen services Appeal partly decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for various services - rejection of refund on specific grounds - invoices related to lease rent, canteen services, and address discrepancies.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The dispute arose regarding invoices related to lease rent, canteen services, and address discrepancies. The Assistant Commissioner had sanctioned a portion of the refund claim, but a balance amount was disputed, leading to a Show Cause Notice and subsequent rejection by the lower authorities.

The rejection of the refund was based on specific grounds highlighted by the lower authority. Firstly, the invoices related to lease rent and maintenance charges for a specific premises were rejected due to the address not being mentioned in the ST-2 certificate. Secondly, the credit for canteen services was denied as the appellant failed to provide evidence of non-recovery from employees. Thirdly, an invoice not addressed to the appellant was also rejected.

Upon hearing both sides, the judge, in this case, noted that the dispute primarily revolved around two invoices related to a premises at Hitech City, not mentioned in the Central Registration certificate. However, it was clarified that the lease agreement and invoices were in the name of HCL Delhi, with the services also provided by HCL Delhi. Therefore, the judge found no reason to deny credit and subsequent refund based on this discrepancy.

Regarding the credit for service tax paid on canteen services, the judge referred to a Bombay High Court case which held that credit is not admissible if employees are charged for canteen services. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the credit citing lack of proof that employees were not charged and consumption of services outside the premises. The judge upheld this decision based on the location of the service provider outside the premises and lack of conclusive evidence of consumption within the premises.

The issue related to an invoice not addressed to the appellant was not pressed further as the amount involved was deemed insignificant. Consequently, the judge partly allowed the appeal, considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the specific grounds for rejecting the refund claim, analyzed each issue in detail, and provided a reasoned decision based on legal precedents and factual evidence presented during the proceedings.