9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 805 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - Expenses related to ESOP - Club or Association - Tour Operator Rail Travel Agency - Outdoor catering - Rent-a-cab - Insurance - Health services - denial on account of nexus - levy of penalty - HELD THAT - Undisputedly the credit in respect of rent-a-cab service has been taken by the appellant on the basis of the invoices which bear their name as recipient of the input services. There can be no denial of that fact. Accordingly for the period prior to 2011 the credit in respect of rent-a-cab service which has been used by the appellant for providing output service, cannot be denied. Accordingly this credit is held to be admissible. In respect of all other services, to a specific query placed by the Bench to the counsel, counsel was unable to produce any documents which show the appellant as recipient of the said services. In absence of any such document, the findings recorded in the impugned order cannot be departed with. Insurance services for which certain documents of ICICI Lombard Travel Insurance have been produced - HELD THAT - There are no reference to the services being received by the appellant. Accordingly these documents also do not qualify as per the prescribed document for the purpose of availing the Cenvat credit. Hence denial of credit in respect of these documents cannot be faulted with as the appellant has availed this credit without production of the document as required. Levy of penalty - HELD THAT - There are no merit in the submission of the appellant to the effect that penalty could not have been imposed on them - Penalty under Section 78 needs to be modified to the extent of admissible credit on rent-a-cab service. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit. 2. Recovery of Interest. 3. Imposition of Penalty. 4. Admissibility of specific input services. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 4,02,441/- for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12. The credit was disallowed on the grounds that the expenses related to ESOP, Club or Association, Tour Operator & Rail Travel Agency, Outdoor catering, Rent-a-cab, Insurance, and Health services were inadmissible under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they were related to staff and had no nexus with the output services provided by the appellant. 2. Recovery of Interest: The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered the recovery of interest at the prescribed rate on the amount of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The interest recovery was justified as the appellant had suppressed material facts and failed to comply with the law and procedures, including payment of service tax. 3. Imposition of Penalty: A penalty of Rs. 4,02,441/- was imposed under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The penalty was upheld due to the appellant's suppression of facts with the intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant's argument that penalty should not be imposed under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was rejected as they had not paid the service tax dues along with interest. 4. Admissibility of Specific Input Services: - Expenses related to ESOP: The expenses were disallowed as they were related to staff welfare and had no nexus with the output services. The appellant failed to produce evidence that these services were not for personal use and that their absence would impact the quality and efficiency of the output services. - Club Membership Fees: The credit was disallowed as the appellant failed to prove that the club membership services were related to the output services and not for personal use of employees. - Tour Operator/Air Travel Agent's Services & Rail Travel Agent's Services: The credit was disallowed as the appellant failed to provide evidence that the travel was for business purposes and not for personal use of employees. - Outdoor Catering Services: The credit was disallowed as the appellant failed to prove that these services were not for personal use of employees and that their absence would impact the quality and efficiency of the output services. - Rent-a-cab Services: The credit was allowed for the period prior to 2011 as the invoices bore the appellant's name as the recipient of the input services. However, for other periods, the credit was disallowed due to lack of documentary evidence. - Insurance Medical and Health Services: The credit was disallowed as these services fell under the exclusion clause and were not analogous to services falling within the ambit of Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The credit for rent-a-cab services prior to 2011 was held admissible. However, the disallowance of credit for other services was upheld due to the appellant's failure to produce necessary documents. The imposition of penalty was upheld with a modification to the extent of admissible credit on rent-a-cab service. The impugned order was upheld with the above modifications.
|
