9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 655 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - export of service - rejection on the ground that the input service invoices received at the premises not registered with the service tax authorities - nexus of input service with output service - rejection also on the ground that the Input services availed on the basis of incomplete invoices which do not contain the name/ address of the Appellant - Rejection also on the ground that input services availed on the basis of photocopies of invoices and original invoices not provided - last ground of rejection is input services which are utilised for providing output service to foreign affiliates in relation to projects in India. Rejection on the ground of input service invoices received at the premises not registered with the service tax authorities - HELD THAT - The appellant has four operating offices and his registered address is as 249A, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon which is registered under the service tax but certain invoices were issued at other offices and the revenue has rejected the refund claim only on the ground that the registration is mandatory pre-condition of availment of credit or refund thereof. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgement of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-III, CHENNAI VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI M/S. SCIOINSPIRE CONSULTING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD, CHENNAI 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble High Court after considering the various rules and the notification No. 5/2006-CE NT dated 14.03.2006 has come to the conclusion that registration of the premises is not a pre-condition for grant of refund - thus, the denial of refund on this ground is not justified. Nexus of input service with output services - Entertainment Service - Helpdesk Services - Coffee Vending Machine - hospitality services - Gold Resort Services - Event Management service - Catering, Pandal and Shamiana Services - Lawn Services - Insurance Services - Accounting and Audit Services in relation to filing of refund - insurance services relating to employee health scheme - HELD THAT - In various cases ach of the impugned services has been held to be input service as the same is availed in connection with the business and rendering of output service. The definition of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 mean any service used by a provider of taxable service for providing output service. The definition is very wide in its ambit for the following reasons that any implies there is no restriction of any kind and consequently it is inclusive definition and not an exhaustive one. Thirdly the usage of word used brings those services within the fold of input services which facilitate the provider to render output services and the term in relation to is a very broad expression - the cenvat credit on input services are in fact relating the business activity of the appellant and are covered by the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and the appellant has rightly claimed the cenvat credit. The third ground on which the refund has been rejected is that the Input services availed on the basis of incomplete invoices which do not contain the name/ address of the Appellant - HELD THAT - Out of the total amount of INR 5,41,352/- that has been rejected on account of missing details on the invoices mainly relates to invoices raised by M/s Orange Cabs Pvt. Ltd to the extent of Rs. 5,07,995/-. To this effect, the Ld. Counsel submits that M/s Orange Cabs issued a certificate admitting its mistake and certifying that the invoices amounting to INR 1,02,65,217/- (including service tax amount of INR 5,07,995/- were issued against provision of rent-a-cab service to the Appellant - with regard to other invoices issued by other vendors, the appellant s name has been mentioned, and only address is not mentioned. Reference made to NOVOZYMES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE 2013 (12) TMI 1474 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the Tribunal has observed When a document on the basis of which credit was taken is not required to be produced, how suppression of facts can be invoked and on what basis defies imagination. Thus, the rejection of refund on this ground is also not valid in law. Rejection on the ground that input services availed on the basis of photocopies of invoices and original invoices not provided - HELD THAT - This issue has been considered by various benches of the Tribunal and it has been held that the refund of cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the original invoices were not filed or credit availed on the basis of photocopies - reliance can be placed in SHIVAM ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2018 (2) TMI 816 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT - thus, the rejection of refund on the ground of not filing the original invoices is not justified. Rejection on the ground that input services which are utilised for providing output service to foreign affiliates in relation to projects in India - HELD THAT - The services provided by the appellant were used ultimately by the overseas affiliates only as benefit arising out of the services provided by the appellant accrued to the overseas affiliates only and hence, the requirement of Rule 3(2) of the export of the services stood satisfied as the services were provided by the appellant from India and the recipient of the services are located outside India and were used by the foreign affiliates located outside India satisfying the condition of Rule 3(1)(iii) of export rules. Moreover, the Circular No. 111/05/2009-ST dated 24.02.2009 has clarified that the phrase used outside India is to be interpreted to mean that the benefit of the service should accrue outside India. Moreover, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. FANUC INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -BANGALORE-LTU 2020 (1) TMI 316 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the Tribunal after considering the export of service rules and the Circular No. 111/05/2009-ST dated 24.02.2009 has held that where the benefit of the services accrued outside India it will be termed as export of services. The impugned order set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Input invoices received at premises not registered with Service Tax Authorities. 2. Input services availed in the nature of entertainment services, helpdesk services, etc., not being admissible. 3. Input services availed on the basis of incomplete invoices. 4. Input services availed on the basis of photocopies of invoices. 5. Input services utilized for providing output service to foreign affiliates in relation to projects in India. Summary: Issue 1: Input Invoices at Unregistered Premises The Tribunal examined whether input service invoices received at unregistered premises could justify the rejection of a refund claim. It was found that the appellant had four operating offices, with only one registered under service tax. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai vs. CESTAT, Chennai, which concluded that registration of premises is not a pre-condition for grant of refund. The Tribunal held that denial of refund on this ground is not justified. Issue 2: Admissibility of Certain Input Services The appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on services like entertainment, helpdesk, coffee vending machines, etc., was rejected on the ground that these services had no nexus with output services. The Tribunal referred to multiple decisions and found that each of the impugned services had been held to be input services as they were availed in connection with business activities and rendering of output services. The Tribunal held that these services are covered by the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, and the appellant rightly claimed the CENVAT credit. Issue 3: Incomplete Invoices The Tribunal addressed the rejection of refund due to incomplete invoices that did not contain the name/address of the appellant. It was noted that most of the rejected amount pertained to invoices from M/s Orange Cabs Pvt. Ltd., which had issued a certificate admitting its mistake. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the name and address of the person receiving the taxable service is not a mandatory requirement. The Tribunal held that rejection on this ground is not valid in law. Issue 4: Photocopies of Invoices The Tribunal considered whether refunds could be denied on the basis of photocopies of invoices. It referred to various decisions, including Shivam Electrical Industries, where it was held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground that original invoices were not filed. The Tribunal concluded that rejection of refund on this basis is not justified. Issue 5: Services to Foreign Affiliates for Projects in India The Tribunal examined whether input services utilized for providing output services to foreign affiliates in relation to projects in India could justify the rejection of a refund. It was found that the services provided by the appellant were ultimately used by the overseas affiliates, satisfying the requirement of Rule 3(2) of the Export Rules. The Tribunal referred to Circular No. 111/05/2009-ST, which clarified that the phrase "used outside India" means the benefit of the service should accrue outside India. The Tribunal held that denial of refund on this ground is also bad in law. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief as per law.
|
