2018 (3) TMI 710 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - whether the appellant is eligible for credit on the various input services like Mandap Keeper Service, Real Estate Agent Service, Transport of Goods by Air Service, Programme Producer Service, Event Management Service etc.? - Held that - The period involved is prior to 1.4.2011 when the definition of input services had a wide ambit as it included the words activities relating to business - The Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has analysed the implication of the term within the definition of input services and has held that almost all activities relating to the business of the assessee would fall within the ambit of input service - the denial of credit alleging that these services do not qualify for input service is unjustified. CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that appellant though has a centralized registration but does not have centralized billing system - Held that - The credit was availed at Hosur on the input services which have been availed at the various service centres since the appellant has obtained centralized registration for credit - the denial of credit on this ground cannot sustain. Time limitation - Held that - The appellant has furnished necessary details of credit availed along with ST 3 returns. The documents produced show acknowledgement by the department. This clearly evidences that the appellant has not suppressed facts regarding the availment of credit on input services - the SCN issued invoking extended period cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of credit on various input services.
2. Centralized billing system and credit availed on services utilized in other service centers.
3. Grounds of limitation for the show cause notice.

Eligibility of Credit on Various Input Services:
The appellant, engaged in maintenance and repair services, availed credit on input services like Mandap Keeper Service, Real Estate Agent Service, Transport of Goods by Air Service, and others. The appellant argued that any activity related to its business is eligible for credit, citing the definition of input services prior to 1.4.2011. Referring to a High Court judgment, it was held that denial of credit on the basis that these services do not qualify as input services is unjustified.

Centralized Billing System and Credit Availed on Services Utilized in Other Service Centers:
The appellant, despite having centralized registration without a centralized billing system, maintained that it had a centralized billing system and was availing credit on services used in other service centers at Hosur. It was noted that during the relevant period, there was no provision for Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration. The Tribunal held that denial of credit on this ground was unsustainable, especially since the department had accepted a precedent where credit was allowed even if services were utilized in different units of the appellant.

Grounds of Limitation for the Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued on the ground of limitation, stating that necessary details of credit availed were furnished along with ST 3 returns, and the department had acknowledged these details. It was concluded that the show cause notice invoking the extended period alleging suppression of facts was not sustainable. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the ground of limitation as well.

In conclusion, the impugned order disallowing credit on various input services and citing lack of centralized billing system was set aside both on merits and limitation grounds. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.