2018 (2) TMI 1028 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Renting of Immovable Property Services - Maintenance or Repair Services - Delegate (Commercial Training or Coaching) - Maintenance or Repair Service - denial on the ground that the entire credit availed on the input services could not be utilised by them being an E.O.U - Held that - in the appellant s own case M/s. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST Pondicherry 2017 (8) TMI 1053 - CESTAT CHENNAI the issue whether the appellant is eligible for credit on Renting of Immovable Property Service for the service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism by the company has been discussed and analysed - the issue has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall consider facts of the case - matter on remand. With regard to the Maintenance or Repair Services the learned consultant has submitted that the invoices pertain to Housekeeping Services and the appellants have paid service tax under this category - Held that - By mistake they have noted in their ledger that the service tax has been paid under Maintenance or Repair Services. This aspect also requires verification - matter on remand. The credit/refund in respect of Management Consultant Services and Delegate Fees having decided in favour of the appellants in the case of M/s. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST Pondicherry 2017 (8) TMI 1053 - CESTAT CHENNAI - refund allowed. Partly decided in favor of appellant and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 due to non-utilization of credit by an E.O.U.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the rejection of their refund claim for input services. The consultant provided detailed information on various services and amounts involved. The rejection reasons and appeal grounds were meticulously presented for each service. Notably, the Renting of Immovable Property Services was disputed due to service tax payment under reverse charge mechanism by the company instead of the lessor, leading to credit denial. However, previous tribunal orders supported the appellants' eligibility for credit, emphasizing service use for business activities.

In the case of Management Consultant Service and Delegate Fees, the consultant relied on prior decisions favoring the appellants, asserting that the issues were previously addressed in their favor. The Maintenance or Repair Services credit was disallowed based on a misclassification error, where housekeeping service tax payment was mistakenly accounted for under Maintenance or Repair Services. The consultant argued that the appellants could prove the services were for housekeeping purposes, citing a previous tribunal decision in their favor.

During the hearing, the Authorized Representative for Revenue supported the impugned order findings, suggesting a remand for factual error verification regarding Renting of Immovable Property Services and Maintenance or Repair Services. The consultant highlighted inconsistencies in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, prompting a remand to the adjudicating authority for a thorough review and application of tribunal decisions on the issues.

Ultimately, the judgment modified the impugned order to allow credit for Management Consultant Service and Delegate Fees. However, it partially remanded the matter concerning Renting of Immovable Property Service and Housekeeping Services for further verification. The decision was made to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the factual errors and proper consideration of the issues at hand, leading to a partial allowance and partial remand of the appeal.