2017 (3) TMI 620 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - N/N. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 - Outdoor catering service - Insurance Service - Company Secretary Service - Management Maintenance or Repair service - Erection Commissioning or Installation service - Held that - the period involved in the three appeals is prior to 01.04.2011 when the definition of input services had a very wide ambit as it included the words activities relating to business - in the appellant s own case for a different period this Tribunal has analyzed these various services and held the same to be eligible for credit - The services like outdoor Catering services, Insurance services, Company Secretary services, Management Maintenance or Repair services, as well as Erection Commissioning or Installation services has been held to be eligible for credit in various judgements - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellants.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 for accumulated service tax on input services; Eligibility of various input services for credit; Interpretation of 'input services' definition pre-01.04.2011; Analysis of specific services like outdoor catering, insurance, company secretary, management maintenance, and erection commissioning services.

Refund Claims and Input Services Eligibility:
The appellants, engaged in IT software services, filed refund claims for unutilized service tax on input services under Notification No. 5/2006-CE. Part of the refund was rejected after adjudication and first appeal, leading to the present appeals. The Tribunal considered the various input services availed by the appellants and the amounts involved, as detailed in the submissions. The Ld. Counsel argued that the definition of 'input services' pre-01.04.2011 was broad, including 'activities relating to business,' citing previous judgments to support the claim that the services in question qualify as input services eligible for credit.

Specific Services Analysis:
The Ld. Counsel highlighted specific services like outdoor catering, insurance, company secretary, management maintenance, and erection commissioning services, explaining their relevance to the business operations. For instance, outdoor catering services were for mandatory canteen provisions under the Factories Act, insurance services covered capital goods and group policies, and company secretary services ensured compliance with regulations. The Tribunal noted that previous judgments supported the eligibility of these services for credit, contrary to the authorities' rejection based on a different interpretation.

Tribunal's Decision:
After considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal noted that the definition of 'input services' was broad pre-01.04.2011, encompassing activities related to business. Citing previous judgments that found similar services eligible for credit, the Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund was unjustified. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. The decision emphasized the broad interpretation of 'input services' and the applicability of previous judgments in determining eligibility for credit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the specific services under consideration, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal interpretations and precedents.