9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are availing facility of Cenvat Credit. For the period October 2011 to December 2011 they filed refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006. The adjudicating authority rejected claim of refund of Rs. 29,10,826/- on some input services. Aggrieved the appellants filed appeal, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refund of credit of Rs. 77,540/-. Thus Cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 28,33,287/- on various input services was disallowed. Aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. The details of input services for which refund was denied as per the impugned order is as under:- Sl.No. Input Service Amount in Rs. Reasons for denying the credit/refund 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the input service and the service exported. The appellants relied on the judgments rendered in BCH Electric Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV 2013 (31) STR 68 (Tri.-Delhi), KPMG Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri.-Delhi), CST, Bang. Vs. Mercedes Benz Research & Devlp. India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (30) STR 257 (Tri.-Bang.). In these cases it has been held that the service of renting Car parking space used for parking of the vehicles of the Officers/Employees of the assessees Company has nexus with the business of the assessee and has to be treated as an activity related to business. Applying the ratio laid in the above judgments I find that appellants are entitled to credit of Rs. 37,427/- towards car parking service. 3. The appellant has claimed credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices suggest that these activities relate to parties, entertainment activities, corporate tournaments and that there is no nexus between the input services and the services exported. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that such events were for promoting sales, for staff development and augmenting the business of the company. Appellants relied on the judgments in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Ltd. Vs. CCE., LTU. Bangalore 2011 (24) STR 645 (Kar.) and Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE., Aurangabad 2012 (32) STR 95 (Tri.-Mum.) in which cases the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The learned DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that there is no nexus for these activitie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Authority has taken this view which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Original Adjudicating Authority for that matter has placed reliance on the reply filed by the appellants. In Para 6.14 of the Order-in-Original it is seen stated that from the reply submitted it is clearly evident that the above services are for promotion of their Brand, and brand HCL also includes hardware for which brand HCL is well known. The Counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant has nowhere stated in the reply that these input services were availed for promotion of hardware. The learned DR submitted that the advertisements were for the brand HCL, as the Company is well known for hardware and therefore these services have no nexus with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore I concur with the opinion of the authorities below and deny the credit on service tax paid on these. 9. An amount of Rs. 26,050/- has been claimed by appellant towards Visa and Immigration Services. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed refund of service tax paid to the extent pertaining to the employees visit abroad for providing service there, but has disallowed refund of that portion pertaining to the spouse and daughter. It is submitted that as Resident Permit has been extended to spouse and children of employees the same has to be allowed. I cannot agree with this submission. These services do not qualify to be input service to avail credit and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the same. 10. In a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the country or outside for onsite support and software implementation. The employees traveling thus require place for their accommodation for which the above said service has been availed. It is observed by the authority below that the accommodation is availed for 3 to 7 days or for a maximum 30 days. This was denied on the ground that the same is used for onsite support and software implementation to the domestic customers and not overseas customers of the appellant and therefore it is not for providing output services. The appellant submitted that the output service exported is to be worked out and made ready in India itself, and thus services received within domestic terrain was for the business purpose of the appellant and not for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
