2018 (8) TMI 1513 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - outdoor catering services - business auxiliary services (Sodexo pass for employees) - group insurance services - furniture hire services - Held that - The period involved is prior to 01.04.2011 when the definition of input service had a wide ambit - reliance placed in the case of C.C.E. Mumbai Vs. GTC Industries Ltd. 2008 (9) TMI 56 - CESTAT MUMBAI Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Vs. Yodlee Infotech (P) Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 653 - CESTAT BANGALORE and M/s. C-Cubed Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax-I 2017 (8) TMI 792 - CESTAT BANGALORE - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Credit disallowed on outdoor catering services, business auxiliary services (Sodexo pass for employees), group insurance services, and furniture hire services for the period February, 2008 to March, 2011.

Analysis:
The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to disallow credit on service tax paid for various input services for a specific period. The original authority disallowed credit on certain services, leading the appellants to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed credit in respect of outdoor catering services, business auxiliary services (Sodexo pass for employees), group insurance services, and furniture hire services. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Tribunal for redress.

The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that during the period of dispute, the definition of input services included the words 'activities relating to business'. Various Tribunals and High Courts have held that the disputed services are eligible for credit. Referring to past judgments, the Counsel highlighted that outdoor catering services were deemed eligible for credit by a larger Bench of the Tribunal. Similarly, the eligibility of credit on Sodexo passes for meals was upheld in previous cases. The Counsel also cited precedents to support the eligibility of credit for group insurance services and hiring furniture for events. Relying on these arguments and past decisions, the Counsel contended that the denial of credit was unjustified.

In contrast, the learned AR supported the findings of the impugned order disallowing credit on the mentioned services. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal deliberated on whether the services of outdoor catering, Sodexo pass for employees, business auxiliary services, group insurance services, and furniture hiring services were eligible for credit during the relevant period. Considering the broader definition of input services in effect at that time and the precedents cited by the appellant's Counsel, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of credit was unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing credit was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential reliefs deemed necessary.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing credit on outdoor catering services, business auxiliary services (Sodexo pass for employees), group insurance services, and furniture hire services for the specified period, based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents cited during the proceedings.