9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 826 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - Insurance Services, Residential Telephone Connections and Cable Operator Services - Held that - First show-cause notice is time barred in part, for the period prior to 30.9.2007, as the return for half year ended 30.9.2007 was still not due. - So far insurance service availed for insuring business risk (insurance to safeguard tax for infidelity and forging of securities), I hold the same to be allowable input service. - So far input service - Telephone connection is concerned, at residence of senior officials, the same is held to be essential input for the appellant. The appellant corporation have huge business risk, and have to be vigilant at all times. - As regards the cable operator s services, I hold the same as allowable input service, as the same is utilized in various offices of the appellant for being up-dated with the stock and money market. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT credit on input services by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II for the period 2003-2009. 2. Invocation of extended period of limitation for issuing show cause notices. 3. Discrepancies in the Order-in-Original regarding disallowed CENVAT credit amounts. 4. Nexus between input services and output services provided by the Appellant. 5. Levying of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of CENVAT Credit The Commissioner disallowed CENVAT credit on certain input services like Insurance, Club Membership, Residential Telephone Connections, Outdoor Catering, and Cable Operator Services. The Appellant argued that these services had a direct or indirect nexus with their output services, citing legislative intent and relevant case laws. The Commissioner's disallowance was based on the lack of nexus and alleged suppression of facts. Issue 2: Extended Period of Limitation The Appellant contended that the show cause notice issued beyond the regular limitation period was invalid as the department was aware of the CENVAT credit claims since 2004. The Appellant relied on legal precedents stating that the extended period cannot be invoked when facts are known to the department. Issue 3: Discrepancies in Order-in-Original The Order-in-Original incorrectly stated the disallowed CENVAT credit amounts, leading to a clerical error. The Appellant highlighted this discrepancy and requested a correction in the amount mentioned for disallowed credit. Issue 4: Nexus between Input and Output Services The Appellant argued that certain input services, like insurance for business risks, residential telephone connections for senior officials, and cable operator services for market updates, were essential for their business operations. They provided evidence to establish the nexus between these input services and the efficiency of their output services. Issue 5: Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 The Appellant challenged the imposition of penalties under sections 77 and 78, stating that there was no mens rea or contumacious conduct on their part. They argued that all transactions were duly recorded, and there was no suppression of facts. The Appellant sought relief from the penalties imposed by the Commissioner. In the final judgment, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was partially time-barred, allowed certain input services like insurance, telephone connections, and cable operator services, and granted consequential benefits to the Appellant in accordance with the law.
|
