9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly covers the case of the appellant - decided in favor of appellant. Time limitation - Held that:- Though the appellant has taken the limitation point in both the appeals but I am not giving any findings on the limitation when both the appeals are allowed on merits. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20049/2018-SM, ST/20050/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20742-20743 / 2018 - Dated:- 9-5-2018 - Hon'ble Mr. S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Syed Peeran, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg These two appeals are directed against the common impugned order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) in appeal No.607/2016 disallowed the CENVAT credit of ₹ 27,05,949/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act and also imposed equal penalty in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and in another appeal No.608/2016, the Commissioner (A) disallowed the CENVAT credit of ₹ 19,27,868/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed equal penalty in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed two appeals before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) partially allowed one appeal No.607/2016 and rejected the second appeal No.608/2016. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. Appeal No.ST/20049/2018 4. As far as the appeal No.ST/20049/2018 is concerned, the CENVAT credit to the extent of ₹ 27,05,949/- has been demanded on the ground that certain input services such as restaurant service, event management service, health management service, apartment maintenance, credit in respect of Indian Hotels have in no way impacted the efficiency of the provision of their output service as stipulated in terms of Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.10.2010 and further, the appellants have not submitted documentary evidence to show that tickets for air travel, transportation services are for official purposes. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order denying the CENVAT credit on these input services is not sustainable in law as the same is clearly contrary to the binding judicial precedent wherein it has been specifically held that these services fall in the definition of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. S.T., Bangalore - LTU 2014 (35) S.T.R. 384 (Tri. - Bang.), Monarch Catalyst Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Thane-I 2016 (44) S.T.R. 96 (Tri. - Mumbai) John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-III 2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. - Mumbai) Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai-II 2015 (40) S.T.R. 719 (Tri. - Mumbai) Gateway Terminals (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raigad 2015 (39) S.T.R. 1027 (Tri. - Mumbai) HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.) Willis Processing Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. C.S.T., Mumbai-II 2015 (38) S.T.R. 169 (Tri. - Mumbai) Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T., Noida 2015 (38) S.T.R. 998 (Tri. - Del.) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Gurgaon 2017 (52) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Chan.) Sl. No. Input Service Amount involved Nexus Case Laws ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.1 He further submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation and the allegation of suppression and mis- declaration is not sustainable since the appellant have filed ST-3 returns regularly and cooperated with the department as and when required. It is his further submission that during the material period, appellant has taken a total credit of about ₹ 10 crore and more and the tax paid is also very significant whereas the irregular credit covered by the order is only ₹ 27,05,949/- which is a minimal percentage of the total credit availment. IT is highly improbable that the appellant would resort to suppression or misstatement of facts with intent to evade payment of tax for availing the miniscule portion of ineligible credit. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the extended period has rightly been invoked in the present case as the appellant has suppressed the facts from the department that they are availing CENVAT credit on ineligible services. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on charges levied by authorized partner (Citibank) towards cash/cheque collection done from Appellants stores and other touch points. These charges are directly debited to the Appellants bank account with service tax. 6 Cash processing charges 1,60,985 7 Cheque processing charges 39,547 8 WSS Charges (Online payment) 10,72,282 These the charges paid to third party vendors like bill desk and other vendors who is remitting amount as per 'Cut and pay model'. They will collect amount on behalf of Appellants from the customer and will remit amount after deducting their commission. Copy of Bill Desk invoices enclosed with Synopsis. Total 19,05,385 9 Document not available 22,480 Total CENVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
