2016 (7) TMI 557 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of accumulated cenvat credit - export of services - admissibility of input service being services utilised at the unregistered premises and also some other services namely chartered accountant service, carpet cleaning service, home plant service, interior decorator service, et cetera. - Held that - in view of the Registration granted centralised, including the premises at Mumbai, it is conclusive proof that the appellant is in legal occupation of the said premises, have rendered output services from such premises and have maintained centralised accounting at the Noida Office. I also find that on opening of branch at Mumbai by appellant, an intimation by the director of STPI was given to revenue. I also find that output service have been rendered by Mumbai office, for which bill(s) have been raised. Thus I hold that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of input services received at the premises other than the premises at Noida. Further, other input services save and except, input services received at guest house, and the amount of ₹ 62/- for which no proper explanation was given, credit allowed. - Decided substantially in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of credit of input service for the branch office at Mumbai for the period April to June 2012.

Analysis:
The appellant, a service provider, appealed against the denial of credit of input service for the branch office at Mumbai for the period April to June 2012. The appellant had its head office in Noida and opened branch offices in Mumbai in October 2011 for similar output services. The appellant filed a refund claim for accumulated Cenvat credit for the quarter ended in June 2012. The claim was partly rejected due to certain services being deemed inadmissible. The appellant contested the rejection, leading to an Order-in-Original dated 25/11/13, which sanctioned a refund claim of &8377; 31,14,712 and rejected a claim of &8377; 7,37,111.

The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner Appeals, who upheld the rejection based on the Mumbai office not being registered. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that they had applied for centralized registration for all offices, mentioning that the Noida office would pay service tax centrally. The delay in granting centralized registration was attributed to revenue software issues. The appellant maintained centralized accounting, supported by the registration certificate. The appellant contended that services like renting, cleaning, decoration, car parking, company secretary, meal vouchers, and travel insurance were essential for business operations and should be fully allowable for Cenvat credit.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellant, with centralized registration including Mumbai premises, was legally occupying the Mumbai office, rendering output services, and maintaining centralized accounting in Noida. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit for input services received at premises other than Noida, except for specific disputed amounts. The appeal was partially allowed, directing the adjudicating authority to grant the balance refund amount within 60 days along with interest, except for the specific disallowed amounts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit for input services at the Mumbai office, emphasizing the significance of centralized registration, legal occupation, and centralized accounting practices in determining eligibility for credit.