9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1372 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - certain services obtained for handling a case on family settlement - Held that - the said services have been used for the purpose of merger with other companies - the services of merger has no relation with the manufacture. The said service relates to corporate restructuring and is not specifically covered under any of the heads of input services - the said services do not qualify to an input service - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit on certain services.
In the present case, the appellants, S.H. Kelkar & Co. Ltd., appealed against the denial of cenvat credit on certain services. The audit raised objections regarding the cenvat credit availed for services related to handling a case on family settlement and services on the issue of merger with two other companies. The appellants admitted and reversed the credit related to family settlement services. However, a show-cause notice demanded reversal of cenvat credit amounting to ?4,53,818 for services used in family settlement. The adjudication process allowed a cenvat credit of ?1.64 lakhs and upheld a demand of ?2,89,018 as service tax paid for services received for family settlement. The appellants contended that the services were not used for family settlement but for restructuring through a merger. The invoice and Letter of Engagement (LOE) described the services as professional services for advising and implementing a group structure realignment, not related to family settlement. The appellants argued that the services fell under legal, accounting, and financing services categories. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of input services post-April 2011 and concluded that the services for merger did not qualify as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The services were deemed to be for corporate restructuring, not falling under any specific category of input services like accounting, financing, or legal services. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the argument presented by the appellants.
|
