2017 (3) TMI 565 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - input services or not - advertisement services - broadcasting, banking and financial services - Chartered Accountant Services - Club or membership - Construction Services - Erection and Commissioning service - Held that - the period involved is prior to 01.04.2011 when the definition of input services had a wide ambit as it included the words activities relating to business. The raising of funds and lending the same for interest is only for the purpose of investment which is turn used in the business of the respondent. Such activities would be included in the words activities relating to business. - investment cannot be classified as an activity and therefore separate accounts need not be maintained for such activities indulged by the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing credit on input services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the department challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order that allowed credit availed by the respondent on various input services amounting to ?18,83,216. The period in question was from April 2010 to September 2010. The respondent was registered for providing services under 'Management or Business Consultancy Services.' The department argued that services availed by the respondent such as advertisement, broadcasting, banking, financial services, etc., did not qualify as input services, and thus, the credit should not be allowed. The respondent had raised funds through an IPO and invested them to earn interest by providing loans to other companies, which the department claimed was an exempted service. The key argument was that the respondent did not maintain separate accounts for these activities, making them ineligible for credit.

The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the period involved was before 01.04.2011 when the definition of input services had a broader scope, including 'activities relating to business.' The department contended that the funds raised through IPO and advanced to other companies constituted a service exempted from tax, making the respondent ineligible for credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that investment is not a service and that the respondent's activities fell within the scope of 'activities relating to business.' The Commissioner highlighted that the investment was for business purposes, not banking activities, and therefore did not require separate accounts. The Commissioner's decision was based on the understanding that the investment activities were integral to the respondent's business operations and fell under the definition of 'activities relating to business.'

Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appeal filed by the department. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's reasoning that the investment activities were part of the respondent's business operations and did not constitute a separate service. Therefore, the respondent was deemed eligible for the credit on the input services as per the relevant provisions.