2015 (9) TMI 1037 - AT - Service Tax

Availment of CENVAT Credit - disallowance of refund claim - export of BAS service - nexus of input service with output service - Rent-a-Cab Services, Courier Services, Management, Maintenance & Repair Service, Manpower Recruitment Service, Security Services, Cleaning Services, BSS Services (Summit), Legal Consultancy Services, Chartered Accountancy Services, Telecommunication Services and Renting of immovable property - Held that - The credit of service tax on Courier Service has been denied for the reason that these were used for dispatch within India where as appellant is engaged in export of services. That therefore these services has no nexus with the output services. - The important documents have to reach the destination in time for which it is not possible to hand deliver them, and that these services are extremely necessary for the business of the appellant. They also relied upon the judgments rendered in CCE, Vapi Vs. Apar Industries - 2010 (8) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD which was affirmed in Commissioner Vs. Apar Industries - 2013 (2) TMI 276 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Merely because the courier service was utilized within the country it cannot be assumed that the services does not have nexus with output services. - Further there is no dispute that these input services were received by the appellant. I hold that the appellants are eligible for refund of ₹ 6,670/- towards service tax paid on courier services. According to appellants Management, Maintenance & Repair Service was received for maintaining its business premises from where the activities of output service are carried out. Following the ratio laid in the judgment 2014 (1) TMI 664 - CESTAT NEW DELHI I find that appellants are entitled to credit of ₹ 37,048/- for Management, Maintenance & Repair Service. Appellant has availed the services of man-power recruitment and supply agency s service for hiring nurses for its employees and also for hiring administrative and support staff which is required for carrying out its day to day business activities. Therefore I find that the denial of refund on Manpower Recruitment Service, is unjustified. The same has to be allowed. The security service was used to provide safety to employees. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the claim holding that the invoices show security guard for pickup and drop of employees and has no nexus with output service. Appellants are entitled to credit/refund on these services. The appellants have claimed credit on service tax paid for stay in hotel as renting of hotel/renting of immovable property. That rooms were availed by employees to stay for business activities. The appellants have claimed credit of tax paid by persons for stay in hotels on the guise of the heading Renting of Immovable Property . Therefore the denial of credit/refund on these services, in my opinion is correct and therefore sustained. Appellant summits were conducted in which helped them improve their cliental. That such Summits helps the Company to meet potential clients and promote its business and gain knowledge. I cannot differ with the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants as such summits do help the Company to promote and develop its business. The credit and refund denied on these services in my view, is unjustified. The same is allowed. The rejection of claim on the ground that filing of appeal or reply is not mandatory requirement is baseless. Legal consultancy services are indispensable for any business to satisfy proper compliance of legal its requirements. Therefore I hold appellants are eligible for refund of credit on these services. Allegation in SCN was with regard denial of credit was for only three invoices. It has been settled in a catena of decisions that non-mentioning of registration number of the service provider is only a procedural lapse and Credit cannot be denied on account of procedural lapse when substantive entitlement itself is not disputed. Further, the proviso to sub clause (2) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, provide that if documents do not contain full particulars the DC/AC has powers to condone the defects after satisfying whether properly accounted. In view thereof, the rejection of claim for the defects alleged in invoices is incorrect. The claim of credit on disputed invoices for those services which are eligible as input services are allowed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim of Cenvat Credit on various services
2. Nexus of input services with output services
3. Procedural irregularities in invoices

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim of Cenvat Credit on Various Services:
The appellants, engaged in providing 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS) to overseas clients, filed a refund claim of Rs. 2,44,78,648/- for the period October 2010 to December 2010. The claim was partly disallowed, leading to this appeal.

2. Nexus of Input Services with Output Services:

a. Rent-a-Cab Services:
The refund of Rs. 76,463/- for Rent-a-Cab services was initially denied due to perceived lack of nexus with output services. However, the tribunal allowed the refund, recognizing that transportation of employees, especially during odd hours, is essential for the appellant's BPO operations.

b. Courier Services:
The refund of Rs. 6,670/- for courier services was denied on the grounds that services were used domestically. The tribunal allowed the refund, noting that dispatching documents within India is crucial for the appellant's export services.

c. Management, Maintenance & Repair Services:
The refund of Rs. 37,048/- was initially denied as these services were used for painting and mica finishing. The tribunal allowed the refund, citing judicial precedents that such services qualify as input services related to business activities.

d. Manpower Recruitment Services:
The refund of Rs. 91,958/- was denied due to lack of nexus with output services. The tribunal allowed the refund, stating that recruitment services are integral to business operations, especially for hiring support staff and nurses.

e. Security Agency Services:
The refund of Rs. 37,548/- was denied, but the tribunal allowed it, recognizing the necessity of security services for employee safety, particularly during odd hours.

f. Cleaning Services:
The refund was initially denied due to cleaning services being used for guest houses. The tribunal allowed the refund, noting that maintaining guest houses for business purposes qualifies as an input service.

g. Renting of Immovable Property:
The refund of Rs. 52,413/- was denied as hotel stays were not considered related to output services. The tribunal upheld this denial.

h. Design Services:
The refund of Rs. 753/- for coffee mugs with the company logo was denied, and the tribunal upheld this denial, finding no direct or indirect relation to output services.

i. Business Support Services:
The refund of Rs. 8,240/- was denied, but the tribunal allowed it, recognizing that summits help in promoting and developing the business.

j. Legal Consultancy Services:
The refund of Rs. 6,180/- was denied, but the tribunal allowed it, emphasizing the necessity of legal services for business compliance.

k. Chartered Accountancy Services:
The refund was initially denied, but the tribunal allowed it, stating that these services are essential for statutory compliance and business operations.

3. Procedural Irregularities in Invoices:
The refund of Rs. 1,69,346/- was denied due to defective invoices lacking PAN-based service tax registration numbers or proper addresses. The tribunal allowed the refund, considering it a procedural lapse and not a substantive issue, provided the services were utilized for taxable output services.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the refund claims for Rent-a-Cab Services, Courier Services, Management, Maintenance & Repair Services, Manpower Recruitment Services, Security Services, Cleaning Services, Business Support Services, Legal Consultancy Services, and Chartered Accountancy Services. The refund claims on improper/defective invoices were also allowed, except for Telecommunication Services and Renting of Immovable Property. The appeal was partly allowed.