2014 (4) TMI 323 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - service Tax paid on the seizing charges - services of recovery agent used in Banking and Financial Service and Insurance Auxiliary Service - Revenue contends that Service Tax paid on the seizing charges is not permissible under the law inasmuch as the seizing of vehicles is not an input service for the lending activity undertaken by the appellant - Held that - expression activity relating to business in the definition of input service is very wide and any activities which are in relation to the business would be an eligible input service. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of the appellant that the recovery agent s services engaged by them is an eligible input service for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11. However, w.e.f. 1.4.2011, the definition of input service has undergone a change and the expression activity related to business has been omitted and therefore, for the period before 1.4.2011, the recovery agent s service is prima facie an eligible input service. - After 1.4.2014 the same would not be eligible input service - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, Definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Eligibility of seizing charges under Service Tax, Applicability of High Court judgments on input services, Pre-deposit requirement for waiver of dues.

Delay in filing the appeal:
The appellant, M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd., sought condonation of a 110-day delay in filing the appeal due to a change in the corporate office address, resulting in the delayed receipt of the impugned order. The appellant learned about the order through a recovery notice and subsequently filed for condonation. The Tribunal, considering the reasons satisfactory, condoned the delay and proceeded with the appeal.

Definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant, engaged in financial services and lending for vehicle purchases, claimed Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid by recovery agents for seizing charges. The Revenue contended that seizing charges did not qualify as an input service for the lending activity. The appellant argued that seizing charges were integral to their business of money lending and thus eligible for credit under the broad definition of input services.

Eligibility of seizing charges under Service Tax:
The Revenue issued a show-cause notice demanding Service Tax on seizing charges, contending that such charges were not permissible under the law as input services for the lending activity. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, leading to the appellant's appeal against the decision.

Applicability of High Court judgments on input services:
The appellant cited High Court judgments, including the Coca Cola case and Ultratech Cement case, to support their argument that recovery services by agents constituted an eligible input service. The Tribunal acknowledged the wide scope of the definition of input services and noted the change in the definition post-April 2011, affecting the eligibility of recovery agent services for the subsequent period.

Pre-deposit requirement for waiver of dues:
After analyzing the contentions and High Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.19,25,580 for the period post-April 2011 within four weeks. Compliance with the pre-deposit would result in the waiver of the remaining dues and a stay on recovery during the appeal process. Failure to comply would lead to dismissal of the appeal without further notice.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay in filing, interpretation of input services, eligibility of seizing charges under Service Tax, reliance on High Court judgments, and the pre-deposit requirement for waiver of dues, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies involved in the case.