9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of input service as given in Section 2 (l) of the CCR, 2004, and accordingly shall be eligible for refund (except for meal charges/food coupon). Rejection of refund on procedural grounds / lapses - Held that:- the impugned O-in-As to the extent of rejection of refund, on grounds of non availability of service tax registration numbers, is not maintainable and the same is liable to be set aside and appeal is liable to be allowed. The rejection of refund covered by certain invoices on grounds that description of input service not mentioned properly is not proper since the appellant gave gave clear evidences before Commissioner (Appeals) explaining nature of service rendered by such input service providers and also justified the essentiality of such input services in rendering their output services. The Appellant shall be entitled for CENVAT Credit and consequent credit in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. [2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal Nos. ST/42508/2015 & ST/42509/2015, Appeal Nos. ST/42510/2015 to ST/42518/2015 , Appeal Nos. ST/42519 to 42536/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In certain invoices details like nature of service, value of service, service tax regn. number etc were not found mentioned 1,18,427/- service tax was not claimed in invoices 78,508 2. ST/42510 to ST/42527/2015 August, 2010 to March, 2011 September 2011. Denial of Refund on account of ineligible service 18,35,960 Order in Appeal No. 92 to 108 109/2014 all dated 29.04.2015 passed pursuant to remand by this Tribunal vide Final Order no 40215-40231/2014 dated 03.03.2014Order-in-Appeal No.7 to 22/2013 dated 10.12.2013 Order in Original No 20-35/2012 all dated 30.03.2012 3. / ST/42528 to 42536 2015 April 2011 to Sept 2011 Denial of Refund on account of ineligible service 7,81,158 O-in-A Nos.303 to 311/2015 dt.25.09.15 Order in Original No.53 to 58/2012-RF dt.02.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Ramachandran, learned consultant for the appellant, as regards denial of input service, submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had given a narrow interpretation of inclusive part of definition and rejected refund on certain input services, which is totally incorrect since the services specified in inclusive part were only illustrative and not exhaustive. 5. Further the learned consultant placed reliance on the following case laws:- 1. CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.) paras 28, 34 35) 2. CCE, Bangalore-III Vs Stanzen Toyotetsu India (p) Ltd - 2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-STPara (10): 3. Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd UP Vs CCE Meerut I 2016-TIOL-20-SC-CX-LB 4. C.C.E., Pune vs Emerson Innovation Center - 2015-TIOL-887-CESTAT-MUM He had also placed heavy reliance on the CBEC circular No.120/01/2010-S.T. dated 19.01.2010 which states as follows:- 3.1 Use of different phrases in rules and notification [para 2(a)] : 3.1.1?The primary objection indicated by the field formations is that the language of Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) permits refund only for such services that are used in providing output service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted that the appellant had given clear evidences before Commissioner (Appeals) explaining nature of service rendered by such input service providers and also justified the essentiality of such input services in rendering their output services. 8. As regards the rejection of refund on ground that service tax was not claimed in invoices, the learned counsel submitted that they had made service tax payments under reverse charge. They also produced copies of invoices in support of their claim. 9. Shri A. Cletus, ADC (A.R), representing the Department had re-iterated the Order in Appeal. 10. I have carefully gone through the records and heard both sides. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the service of information technology service named E publishing of books , they are exporting output service namely information technology software service which is covered under section 3(iii) of the Service Tax Rules, 2005. The appellants had availed various input services in the course of providing their output service. Since the appellants could not utilize their entire credit as the entire output service was exported, they have filed vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstrued as a mere welfare measure and placed reliance on the following case laws:- 1. CCE Bangalore-I vs. Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd - 2015 (039) STR 0578 Kar. 2. CCE NASIK Vs CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 598 I find that the contention of the appellant is correct since Rent-a-Cab service is used for transportation of employees to work. It has to be considered as being used for the provision of output service and for promoting the business as any facility given to the employees will result in greater efficiency and promotion of business. Hence, by following the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka referred supra, I allow the credit availed for the Rent-a-Cab service. iii) CONSULTANCY SERVICES 14. As regards management consultancy service, the appellants submitted that they had provided expert guidance by conducting seminars in the area of sales, marketing and business promotion activities and consultancy support services by way of demonstration of capabilities of the company in rendering of service to the foreign clients, strategic support in finalization of price, delivery schedules and marketing strategies etc. I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re staff welfare activity. They help in keeping the morale of the employees and boost productivity. I find that the submission of the appellants is not acceptable for the reason that meal coupon is one of a welfare activity for the employees and definition under Rule 2 (l) cannot be stretched too far to make the welfare activities also within the purview of the input service definition and hence the credit is not eligible for such services. viii) DG HIRE CHARGES 20. With regard to the DG HIRE CHARGES, it was submitted by the appellant that for rendering of continuous service to their clients located abroad, continuous power supply was an essential requirement, therefore DG Hire Charges paid for operating of Diesel Generating sets at the premises of the appellant are very much eligible for refund. ix) INSURANCE CHARGES 21. Further, with regard to the INSURANCE CHARGES paid to M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., it was submitted that for risk coverage and up-keep of electronic systems and appliances installed in the premises of the appellant, they have availed the same. I find that the insurance was not availed for any personal benefits and was availed for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he emphasis that has rightly been laid in recent years upon the environment and pollution control requires that all plants which emit effluents should be so equipped as to rid the effluents of dangerous properties. The apparatus used for such treatment of effluents in a plant manufacturing a particular end-product is part and parcel of the manufacturing process of that end-product. Therefore I find that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the appellant s case also and hence are eligible to refund of credit pertaining to the maintenance of sewage treatment plant. xiii) AIR TRAVEL AGENT 26. I find that the services of the air travel agent was availed for making travel arrangements of employees to meet clients in connection with marketing and accordingly shall be eligible for refund. xiv) CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SERVICE 27. With regard to the Chartered Accountant service, I find that it is part of the auditing activity and is done to ensure accuracy of financial and other records which are vital for the business of the appellant. Further the same is a specified service in the inclusive part of the definition of input service . xv) COMMERCIA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices i) Non availability of registration details of input service providers 34. As regards denial of credit on account of non availability of registration details of input service providers, it is seen from the order of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), that a credit of ₹ 55,578/- had been rejected for the reason that the invoice copies did not contain the registration number of the service provider. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the registration details of such input service providers which had been collected from the CBEC official website, had been provided before the Commissioner (Appeals). On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the registration details of all such input service providers were available and therefore the rejection of refund on the ground of non availability of registration number in the invoice is not maintainable and consequently refund amounting to ₹ 55,578/-covered by such input service invoices are very much allowable. 35. In view of the same, the impugned O-in-As to the extent of rejection of refund, on grounds of non availability of service tax registration numbers, is not maintainable and the same is liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
