9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. Management, Repair and Maintenance Service - Held that: - these services are consumed for the maintenance and repair of the office premises, facility management charges and charges for housekeeping, which are required for effectively and efficiently providing the export of service - these services falls in the definition of ‘input service’ subject to the verification of the invoices which are enclosed by the appellant along with the appeal papers - matter on remand. Renting of Immovable Property service - Held that: - this service falls in the definition of ‘input service’ and the appellant is entitled to the refund of service tax paid on this ‘input service’ subject to verification of the invoices - matter on remand. Supply of Tangible Goods Services - Held that: - equipments like photocopier machine have been obtained on lease to be used for provision of output service and without such equipment the appellant may not be in a position to render the services smoothly - this service also falls in the definition of ‘input service’ and therefore, the appellant is eligible for credit subject to verification of the invoices - matter on remand. Event Management Service - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,950/- on the ground that the invoices have not been produced - Held that: - appellant submits that the invoices were submitted before the authorities but they were not examined and he undertakes to submit the invoices again before the adjudicating authority if the matter is remanded - matter on remand. Refund of ₹ 9,466/- was rejected on the ground that Service Tax Registration number was not available - Held that: - refund cannot be rejected on procedural infractions - refund allowed. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/21460 - 21466/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20690 – 20696 / 2018 - Dated:- 27-4-2018 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Siddarth, CA Pricewaterhouse Cooper (P) Ltd For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg These seven appeals have been filed by the appellant against the common impugned order dated 30.6.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has allowed the refund in respect of certain input services and denied the refund in respect of other services and remanded the matter to the lower authority for re-quantification and allowing the refund to the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 Rs.27,80,703/- Rs.71,061/- Rs.2,781/- Rs.9,923/- Rs.58,357/- 7 ST/21466/2017 Oct.-Dec. 2013 Rs.30,53,573/- Rs.1,18,945/- Rs.28,136/- Rs.31,436/- Rs.59,373/- Thereafter, show-cause notices were issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim mainly on the ground that the documents in original supporting the claim filed by the appellant had not been furnished and proof of collaborative or nexus between the input services and services said to have been exported had not been provided and further, copy of original registration certificate, valid LOP and STPI approval, copies of service agreement with customers, original export invoices, copy of ST-3 returns, softex forms, original FIRC had not been furnished. Further, copy of registration certificate not furnished to verify the service tax registration for the business premise and the service category as mentioned in the export invoices had not been furnished. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (xvi) General Insurance Services (against property damage and business interruption) Rs.17,610/- (xvii) invoices not available Rs.6,90,950/- (xviii) Service Tax Registration number was not available Rs.9,466/- Total Disallowed Rs.18,15,950/- 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund on the ground that certain services do not fall in the definition of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) is not tenable in law as these services have been held to be input services by various decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court. 6. Now, I will proceed to take each input services on which refund has been rejected on the ground of nexus. (i) As far as Health Insurance Service is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the appellant has obtained group medical insurance for its employees which is an essential requirement for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2- CESTAT-BANG. Therefore, this service falls in the definition of input service and the appellant is entitled to the refund of service tax paid on this input service subject to verification of the invoices. (v) As far as Supply of Tangible Goods Services (renting of chairs and other equipment and xerox, etc.) are concerned, the appellant has submitted that they have obtained equipments like photocopier machine on lease to be used for provision of output service and without such equipment the appellant may not be in a position to render the services smoothly. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision rendered in the case of CST vs. Manhattan Associates (India) Development Centre Pvt. Ltd.: 2016-TIOL-3083-CESTAT- BANG. In view of the above decision, in my view this service also falls in the definition of input service and therefore, the appellant is eligible for credit subject to verification of the invoices. (vi) As far as Event Management Service are concerned, the appellant has submitted that they organize various events for its prospective clients/employees vide which the employees are updated with the latest development in the industry. He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity Agency Service is concerned, the appellant submits that it relates to the food bill which is a cost to the appellant for the security agency. The Commissioner (A) has rightly rejected the refund on account of this service and I do not find any infirmity in rejection of refund on this service because according to him this does not fall in the definition of input service and it is only a welfare activity for the security agency. (x) As far as Catering or Staff Welfare Services are concerned, in view of the Larger Bench decision dated 9.2.2018 in the case of Wipro Ltd. vs. CCE, wherein it has been held that outdoor catering service is not eligible for input service credit post amendment dated 1.4.2011 and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to refund on account of this service. (xi) As far as Sponsorship Services are concerned, the appellant has submitted that these services are used in relation to its output services by way of sponsoring various events. Advertisement banners and booths displaying the appellant s services at these events help in brand development and to boost revenue of the services rendered by the appellant. In my view, this falls in the defini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
