9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1718 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - input service - repair and maintenance of staff quarters - expenses incurred towards staff welfare services - travelling expenses - membership fees etc. - denial on account of nexus - HELD THAT - Under the un-amended definition of input service (effective upto 31.03.2011), the phrase activities relating to business was specifically finding place for consideration of the service as input service - The fact is not under dispute that for accomplishing the purpose of the appellant s business activities, the disputed services were used and utilized by it. Since the value of taxable service along with service tax paid there-on was reflected as business expenses in the Books of Account, the disputed services should be considered as input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Rules for the period upto 31.03.2011. Under the amended definition of Rule 2 (l) ibid(with effect from 01.04.2011), the assessee is permitted to avail credit on any service used for providing the output service, excepting the excluded category of services mentioned in the definition of input service - The description of disputed services provided in the impugned order, do not fall under the excluded category provided under Rule 2(l) of the Rules. Therefore, denial of Cenvat benefit on the disputed services will not be proper and justified on the ground that those services have no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant. Since the original authority had specifically recorded the findings that the appellant had not produced any documentary evidences to show nexus as well as the eligibility of Cenvat benefit on the disputed services, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the documentary evidences to be produced by the appellant to establish that the disputed services are in fact, conforming to the definition of the input services and were used / utilized for providing the output service. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Disputed CENVAT Credit on various taxable services availed by the appellant - Nexus between disputed services and output service - Denial of CENVAT benefit - Documentary evidence supporting eligibility of CENVAT benefit - Remand to original authority for fresh adjudication. Analysis: The appeal was against an order disallowing CENVAT Credit of ?73,20,184/- on various services availed by the appellant for providing Information Technology Software Service and Management, Maintenance or Repair Service. The department disputed the nexus between the disputed services and the output service provided by the appellant, leading to the disallowance of CENVAT Credit and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that the disputed services qualified as 'input service' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and relied on judicial decisions to support their claim. The Advocate for the appellant argued that the disputed services were used for providing the output service and fell under the definition of 'input service' as per the Rules. The department, represented by the D.R., maintained that the disputed services did not meet the criteria for input service and that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal examined the definitions of 'input service' under both un-amended and amended Rules and found that the disputed services should be considered as input services based on the expenses reflected in the Books of Account. The Tribunal concluded that denial of CENVAT benefit on the disputed services was unjustified and remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of documentary evidence to establish the eligibility of CENVAT benefit. The Tribunal ordered a remand to the original authority for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing for the appellant. All issues were to be addressed by the original authority in the fresh decision. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for the appellant to present documentary evidence supporting the eligibility of CENVAT benefit.
|
