2024 (4) TMI 397 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Eligibility for benefit of Cenvat Credit on 16 specified services when they availed benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - HELD THAT - In the precedent orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hyderabad) of this Tribunal, in M/S LEMON TREE HOTEL (CYBER HILLS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.) , M/S FLEUR HOTELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CC, CE, HYDERABAD-IV 2017 (7) TMI 799 - CESTAT HYDERABAD where it was held that the issue availment of Cenvat credit on the input services which are used for bringing into existence of immovable property are also eligible for availment of Cenvat credit. In view of the facts placed on record and the precedent orders in appellant s own case, there are no reason to entertain a different view and are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility for Cenvat Credit on 16 specified services under Notification No. 1/2006-ST.
2. Confirmation of additional demands under Section 73(2) for Restaurant Service and Short-term Accommodation Service.
3. Denial of benefit of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST.

Summary:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Cenvat Credit on 16 Specified Services
The appellant challenged the denial of Cenvat Credit on 16 specified services under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, arguing that the restriction on availing Cenvat Credit was only on "Inputs and Input services" procured for providing output services listed in the notification. They contended that Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR) was omitted effective 01-04-2011, and thus, they utilized the accumulated Cenvat Credit as on 31-03-2011. The Commissioner, however, rejected this argument and confirmed the demand.

Issue 2: Confirmation of Additional Demands
The Commissioner confirmed additional demands of Rs 26,98,168/- under Restaurant Service and Rs. 65,40,315/- under Short-term Accommodation Service u/s 73(2), based on the appellant's utilization of Input Tax Credit instead of discharging liability in cash. The appellant argued that the Commissioner accepted their submissions but still rejected their claims.

Issue 3: Denial of Benefit of Abatement
The appellant cited precedent orders from various benches of the Tribunal, including Hyderabad, Chennai, and Mumbai, which had set aside similar demands. These orders held that the input services used for setting up premises for providing taxable services were eligible for Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal found that the appellant's situation was similar to these precedents, where the denial of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST was overturned.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and precedent orders, held that the appellant was eligible for Cenvat Credit on the 16 specified services and the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.