2019 (12) TMI 720 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT credit - input services - Parking Charges - Work Contract Services - Rule 5 of CCR - HELD THAT - It can be seen from the records that the appellants have availed the said services in order to use the premises of another person for parking of vehicles. The said services having been used for providing output services both credit as well as refund is eligible - credit allowed. Works Contract Services - rejection of credit availed on the said services alleging that these are availed for setting up of the office of the appellant - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the invoices as well as annexure to the agreement, it is seen that there are certain supply of goods which do not go into the Works Contract Services. The appellant has to furnish details of the amount relating to supply of such items. Therefore, this issue matter requires to be remanded to the original authority for verification as to eligibility of credit on Works Contract Services after giving an opportunity to the appellant to furnish details with regard to the supply of goods in the nature of carpets, modular furniture and chairs. The amount relating to carpets, modular furniture and chairs will not be eligible for credit - issue with regard to the Works Contract Services is remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the same. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of credit on Parking Charges.
2. Disallowance of credit on Works Contract Services for setting up the office.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, involved in export of ITSS Services, filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which was disallowed by the original authority in respect of Parking Charges and Work Contract Services, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the parking facility leased for employees and customers makes the service eligible for credit and refund. Regarding Works Contract Services, it was contended that the services were for repair and fit-out of existing structures, not for constructing new buildings, thus falling under "input services."

3. The Revenue representative supported the disallowance, claiming the services were for setting up the office, justifying the rejection by the authorities below.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal addressed the issues. Firstly, it allowed credit on Parking Charges as they were used for providing output services, making them eligible for credit and refund.

5. Secondly, on Works Contract Services, the Tribunal found that the exclusion clause in the definition of "input services" did not apply as the services were for fit-out and other works, not new construction. The Tribunal remanded the issue to verify the eligibility of credit for items like carpets and furniture, not covered under Works Contract Services.

6. The Tribunal allowed the refund for Parking Charges and remanded the Works Contract Services issue for further verification, partially allowing the appeal.