2021 (10) TMI 1232 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilised Cenvat Credit - input or not - nexus of input with the output service - Education and Training Expenses - Subscription Fee - Subscription Fee paid to Export Promotion Council for EOU, SEZ, and M/s. Nasscom - Rejection of refund for mismatch of description in the Invoices issued by M/s. Beyond Square Solutions (P) Ltd. - rejection of refund for invoices do not indicate the Service Tax Registration No. of the service provider. Education and Training Expenses - denial on the ground of nexus - HELD THAT - In the invoices, the services are described as Event Management Services. The invoice does not show that the services are provided for Education and Training Services or as Subscription Fee. As per invoice, the consideration is paid for Event Management Services - The Tribunal in the case of DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI 2016 (11) TMI 521 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that Event Management Services are eligible for credit. The said decision has been upheld by the Bombay High Court in THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VI, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD. 2018 (12) TMI 171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - the disallowance of credit/refund on these invoices issued by M/s. Host India Events Marketing is unjustified. The appellant is eligible for credit/refund. Refund claim - Subscription Fee paid to Export Promotion Council for EOU, SEZ, and M/s. Nasscom - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Alliance Global Services IT India (P) Ltd., (supra) has analysed the very same issue and held that the credit is eligible. It also needs to be pointed out that in para 7.4 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision in the case ofM/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III 2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT to hold that the credit is not eligible - credit availed in respect of Subscription Fee paid on Export Promotion Council for EOU, SEZ and M/s. Nasscom are eligible for refund. Refund claim - Invoices issued by M/s. Beyond Square Solutions (P) Ltd. - Learned counsel has argued that though the nature of expenses is described in the invoices dated 15.05.2015 and 07.03.2015 by M/s. Beyond Square Solutions (P) Ltd., as Subscription Fee, these invoices are actually issued for providing software solutions and not expenses towards Subscription Fee - HELD THAT - On perusal of two invoices, the description of services unambiguously shows that the amount is paid for monthly Subscription Fee. The amount in both these invoices are constant, which is ₹ 15,000/-. There are no reason to assume that these expenses were for Software Services rendered by M/s. BSSPL to appellants.. It has also to be mentioned that the amount paid being constant for every month, it can only be that the amount is paid towards subscription. The appellants have not produced any evidence to support their arguments that M/s. BSSPL assisted them for providing software solutions and the expenses are incurred for such services and not Subscription Fee. For this reason, the rejection of credit on the invoices by M/s.BSSPL is upheld. Refund claim - Invoices issued by two Consultancy Services, namely, M/s. Crave Infotech and Consultancy Services and M/s. Dayadimensi India (P) Ltd. - reason for rejection of refund in respect of these invoices is that the invoices do not indicate the Service Tax Registration No. of the service provider - HELD THAT - It is an omission on the part of service provider, which is beyond the control of the appellants, who is the service recipient. In the case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, AHMEDABAD 2020 (6) TMI 61 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , it was held that this issue is only a technical infraction and the error not being on the assessee s part, the benefit of credit/refund cannot be rejected - the credit/refund on these invoices is eligible. Appeal allowed in part.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims on the ground of ineligible input services.
2. Rejection of refund claims due to improper invoices.
3. Rejection of refund claims for subscription fees.
4. Rejection of refund claims due to missing Service Tax Registration numbers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Refund Claims on the Ground of Ineligible Input Services:
The appellants contested the rejection of refund claims related to invoices issued by M/s. Host India Events & Marketing. The original authority disallowed the credit, stating there was no nexus with the output services and described the services as Education and Training Expenses. However, the invoice described the services as Event Management Services. The Tribunal, referencing the case of M/s. DBOI Global Services P. Ltd. (2017 (48) S.T.R.157 (Tri.-Mumbai)), held that Event Management Services are eligible for credit. This decision was upheld by the Bombay High Court (2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 351 (Bom.)). Consequently, the Tribunal found the disallowance of credit/refund on these invoices unjustified and ruled in favor of the appellant.

2. Rejection of Refund Claims Due to Improper Invoices:
The appellants did not contest the rejection of refund claims related to invoices issued by M/s. People Craft and M/s. Airtel due to the inability to produce the invoices. Thus, the rejection of refund claims for these invoices was upheld.

3. Rejection of Refund Claims for Subscription Fees:
The Tribunal addressed the rejection of refund claims for subscription fees paid to Export Promotion Council for EOU, SEZ, and M/s. Nasscom. The Tribunal referenced the case of M/s. Alliance Global Services IT India (P) Ltd. (2016 (44) S.T.R.113 (Tri.-Hyd.)), which held that such fees are eligible for credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had incorrectly relied on the case of M/s. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (2009 (240) E.L.T.641 (S.C.)), which dealt with the interpretation of 'inputs' rather than 'input services'. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the credit availed for subscription fees paid to Export Promotion Council for EOU, SEZ, and M/s. Nasscom is eligible for refund.

4. Rejection of Refund Claims Due to Missing Service Tax Registration Numbers:
The Tribunal addressed the rejection of refund claims related to consultancy services provided by M/s. Crave Infotech and Consultancy Services and M/s. Dayadimensi India (P) Ltd., where the invoices lacked the Service Tax Registration numbers. The Tribunal referenced the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (2020 (43) G.S.T.L. 562 (Tri.-Ahmd.)), which held that such omissions are technical infractions and should not lead to denial of credit/refund if the service tax was paid and the services were received and used. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the credit/refund for these invoices.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing credit/refund for invoices issued by M/s. Host India Events & Marketing, Export Promotion Council for EOU, SEZ, M/s. Nasscom, and the consultancy services provided by M/s. Crave Infotech and Consultancy Services and M/s. Dayadimensi India (P) Ltd. The rejection of refund claims for invoices issued by M/s. People Craft, M/s. Airtel, and M/s. Beyond Square Solutions P. Ltd. was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed with consequential reliefs if any.

← Previous Next →