2013 (12) TMI 384 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Notification No.5/2006 (EX(NT), dated 14.03.2006 - Whether services were input services - Held that - credit denied on the ground that this invoice is for the purchase of equipment and not for services received - appellant is receiving the services from M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the said company has received the service of rent-a-cab/car rental services and the service tax on these services were provided the service provided. These services were utilised by M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. and not by the appellant. The fact that these expenses are re-imbursed by the appellant to M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. does not make them eligible to CENVAT credit in respect of these services. The original authority has denied the credit on these invoices as the nature of the services are not clear. The invoices in question referred to the words Real Estate Agents along with their service tax registration number. The Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the service agreement came to the conclusion that the service agreement nowhere mentions the Real Estate Agents service, whereas the invoices in question referred to Real Estate Agents service. These invoices cannot be connected to the service agreement. In the absence of which, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the CENVAT credit to the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) did not treat services on movers and packers as input services in the absence of any evidence to the fact that shifting of goods from the guest house or guard hut from one premises to another was in any way related to rendering of the output services. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in denying the CENVAT credit to the appellant - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on the purchase of equipment.
2. Denial of CENVAT credit due to invoices in the name of a different company.
3. Denial of CENVAT credit for security services at locations other than registered premises.
4. Denial of CENVAT credit for unclear nature of services on certain invoices.
5. Denial of CENVAT credit for services related to movers and packers.

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.3,605 for the purchase of a monitor, stating that the credit was disallowed as it was for equipment purchase, not services. The judge upheld this decision, emphasizing that the credit was rightly disallowed as it did not pertain to services received.

2. A significant amount of CENVAT credit (Rs.8,26,947) was denied as the invoices were in the name of a different company, not the appellant. The judge supported the denial, stating that even though expenses were reimbursed by the appellant, the services were utilized by the other company, making the appellant ineligible for the credit.

3. CENVAT credit for security services at locations other than the registered premises was denied. The Commissioner relied on previous tribunal decisions and a High Court ruling to support this denial. The judge found no fault in the Commissioner's decision based on the legal precedents cited.

4. The denial of CENVAT credit on invoices related to 'Facilities Management' services by M/s. C.B. Richards Ellis was upheld. The judge agreed with the Commissioner's decision as the service agreement did not mention 'Real Estate Agents' services, making the connection between the invoices and services unclear.

5. CENVAT credit for services related to movers and packers was also denied. The appellant argued that the services were for shifting goods between premises, but the Commissioner did not consider them as input services without evidence linking them to output services. The judge found no fault in the Commissioner's decision regarding this denial.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was deemed to have no merit, and it was rejected by the judge. The judgment was pronounced on 03.12.2013.