2015 (7) TMI 792 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of Cenvat credit - Cable Operator and GTA services - Held that - As regards Registrar and Transfer Agent Service and Cable Operator Service, the learned counsel submits that in respect of both the services credit is admissible. As regards Registrar Service and Computer Networking Service both are specifically covered in the definition itself. Both the lower authorities have confused the service received relating to Computer Networking Service to be the Cable Operator Service. He draws my attention to the work order wherein the scope of work clearly shows that the responsibility of vendor is for network cabling and shifting of the server at MRPL, Mumbai. The work order shows that what is being talked about is Computer Networking Service and not the Cable Operator Service as understood in relation to TV. As regards R & T Service it has been considered as Research & Trial Service. The Commissioner has disallowed the credit on the ground that sufficient evidence has not been produced even if the claim is made under Registrar and Transfer Agent Service. In my opinion the very nature/name of service is clear. As regards G.T.A. service, the credit is admissible to the appellants in view of the fact that goods are sold on FOB basis. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on R & T service, Cable Operator Service, and G.T.A. service during a specific period.

Analysis:

1. The denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 34,215/- for the period from November 2010 to September 2011 was the primary issue before the tribunal. The pre-deposit was waived due to the narrow compass of the issues involved, allowing the appeal to proceed for a final decision.

2. The denial of credit on the grounds of ineligibility for service tax paid on R & T service, Cable Operator Service, and G.T.A. service was challenged by the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that credit for Registrar and Transfer Agent Service and Cable Operator Service should be allowed as per the definition. The confusion between Computer Networking Service and Cable Operator Service was clarified, emphasizing that the service received was related to Computer Networking Service, not Cable Operator Service. The nature of R & T Service as Research & Trial Service was explained, and the Commissioner's disallowance of credit was contested. Regarding G.T.A. service, it was argued that credit should be admissible due to the goods being sold on FOB basis.

3. After considering the submissions, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant, concluding that a case had been established in their favor. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 7-11-2014.