2018 (10) TMI 839 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - housekeeping/ cleaning services - Hotel accommodation services - denial on the ground that the above input services were not eligible for credit - Held that - This Bench has remanded the matter in the appellant s own case in respect of the Show Cause Notice for the earlier period, for fresh adjudication - The judicial propriety demands that when a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the appeal to the file of the lower authority for fresh adjudication, the same is required to be followed Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT Credit on housekeeping/cleaning services and hotel accommodation services for the period April 2014 to March 2015.

Analysis:
The appellant, a provider of General Insurance Service, contested the denial of CENVAT Credit on input services like housekeeping/cleaning and hotel accommodation services. The appellant argued that these services were utilized for official purposes, such as Quarterly Review meetings and business meetings, and had a direct nexus with their business. The appellant relied on Rule 2(l) for availing CENVAT Credit, emphasizing that the input services were utilized for providing output services. The Ld. Advocate also referred to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and previous judicial decisions to support their contentions.

Regarding the housekeeping services, the Ld. Advocate highlighted that cleaning is essential for maintaining a safe and healthy atmosphere for the employees, directly impacting the appellant's business. The Ld. Advocate pointed out that various judicial fora, including specific cases, had addressed and settled the issue of availing CENVAT Credit on housekeeping services, supporting the appellant's position.

On the other hand, the Ld. Department Representative (DR) mentioned a previous remand order in the appellant's case for fresh adjudication based on Tribunal and High Court decisions. The Member (Judicial) noted the judicial propriety of following a co-ordinate Bench's decision for fresh adjudication. However, considering a High Court ruling in favor of the assessee on similar disputes, including the availment of CENVAT Credit on housekeeping services, the Member (Judicial) found it binding on lower authorities, including the present Bench.

Consequently, the Member (Judicial) ordered a re-adjudication of the matter, similar to the appellant's earlier case, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority should consider all binding decisions relied upon by the appellant and issue a detailed order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes by way of remand, indicating a need for further review and consideration by the lower authority.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the denial of CENVAT Credit on specific services and the arguments presented by both parties, leading to the decision for re-adjudication based on relevant legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.