2008 (6) TMI 13 - AT - Service Tax

Input credit of service tax denied on the ground that the service tax paid on cell-phone, land-line, courier service cannot be held to be input service for the output service maintenance & repairs held that service tax paid on cell phones or land-lines used in connection with output services is available as credit - some of the cell phones in the name of individuals were not established that they were used in relation to the output services matter remanded to verify above aspect

Summary

Issues: Denial of input tax credit on service tax paid for cell phones, land-lines, and courier service for maintenance and repairs services.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue revolved around the denial of input tax credit amounting to Rs.39,330 to the appellant. The denial was based on the argument that the service tax paid on cell phones, land-lines, and courier services could not be considered as input services for the output service of "maintenance and repairs" provided by the appellant. The appellant, however, contended that they provided these services as a franchisee of TATA, WIPRO, MSN Network, and as part of their agreement with these companies, they had to provide immediate services within 24 hours of customer calls. To ensure efficient services, the appellant provided cell phones to their engineers attending calls and fieldwork, utilizing the cenvat credit charged in the bill for these phones.

The Tribunal noted that the law on the issue had been settled by various decisions, stating that the service tax paid on cell phones or land-lines used in connection with output services is eligible for credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that some cell phones were in the names of individuals, and the appellant failed to prove that they were exclusively used in relation to the output services. Due to this factual dispute, the matter was referred back to the original adjudicating authority to verify if the phones were indeed used for attending customer calls, with instructions to allow the credit if they were used as input services. The Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty on the appellant as the dispute was related to the interpretation of legal provisions, and thus, the penalty was set aside.

Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of in the above terms, with the Tribunal emphasizing the need for factual verification regarding the usage of cell phones in connection with the output services provided by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing the nexus between the input services and the output services to determine the eligibility for input tax credit in such cases.