9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Transport Charges - Labour Charges for bore-well - Vehicle Hire Charges - Temenos day expenses - Interior Consultancy - Partition work - Insurance Service - Hotel Expenses - Other rental charges - Electrician and Plumber - Tour Operator Service - Pest Control Service - Car Parking Charges - AMC Charges - External Consultant. Gardening services - HELD THAT:- This issue was dealt with by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. MURUGAPPA MORGAN THERMAL CERAMICS LTD. VERSUS CCE AHMEDABAD [ 2013 (4) TMI 384 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein the Tribunal held that the appellant was required to maintain a garden which is an obligation under the relevant pollution control law and CENVAT Credit with respect to the services used for maintaining the garden would therefore be admissible - refund allowed. Housekeeping services - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III VERSUS HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. [ 2014 (5) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein the Bench has ruled in favour of the assessee - refund allowed. Transport charges - HELD THAT:- In COMMR. OF CUS. C. EX., HYDERABAD-III VERSUS GREY GOLD C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the co-ordinate Bangalore Bench has inter alia ruled that the denial of refund only on the basis of non-disclosure of CENVAT Credit in ST-3 return was not legally sustainable - refund allowed. Appeal allowed in part. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the denial of input credit on the ground of unregistered premises has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the following cases: (i) The Commissioner of G.S.T. & C.Ex., Chennai v. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 676 - Madras High Court]; (ii) C.S.T.-III, Chennai v. Reed Elsevier Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 355 (Mad.)]; (iii) Scionspire Consulting Services (I) P. Ltd., Chennai v. C.S.T.-III [2017 (4) T.M.I. 943 - Madras High Court]; (iv) Verizon Data Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT [2017-TIOL-1241-HC-MAD-ST] 5.2.1 With regard to the denial of input credit alleging ineligible input services, Learned Consultant contended that the definition of "input service" is having a wide ambit and only those services which are specifically excluded could be considered as ineligible services; that in any case, the rejection for the first three appeals is bad. 5.2.2 Learned Consultant also relied on the following decisions in his support to contend that even post 01.04.2011, the courts have held in respect of the impugned services that the assessee need not establish nexus : (i) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Order No. 41063 of 2018 dated 09.04.2018) and this Bench, after following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III v. CESTAT, Chennai [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 45 (Mad.)], has ruled in favour of the assessee. 8.2 In view of the above, we are of the view that the denial of refund for want of registration of the premises is bad. The impugned order to this extent cannot be sustained and consequently, the same is set aside. 9.1 With regard to the issue of denial of input credit on the ground of ineligibility/want of nexus, we find that the following services are relevant for our consideration, as indicated at paragraph 7(i) of the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 : (i) Gardening Service (ii) Housekeeping Service (iii) Transport Charges (iv) Labour Charges for bore-well (v) Vehicle Hire Charges (vi) Temenos day expenses (vii) Interior Consultancy (viii) Partition work (ix) Insurance Service (x) Hotel Expenses (xi) Other rental charges (xii) Electrician and Plumber (xiii) Tour Operator Service (xiv) Pest Control Service (xv) Car Parking Charges (xvi) AMC Charges (xvii) External Consultant 9.2 We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held that Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) has nexus with manufacture of products and also that AMC for computers are used for manifold purposes in connection with manufacture and clearance of products. In view of the above requisite nexus, the Bench held that the assessee was entitled to take credit of the Service Tax paid. In view of the above, we find that the denial, insofar as the above input services are concerned, is not in order and accordingly, direct the authorities to allow the refund of credit on these services. 9.3 However, in respect of the other services namely : Order-in-Original No. & Date Ineligible Input Service 27/2016 (R) dated 17.02.2016 * Temenos Day Expenses * Vehicle Hire Charges 28/2016 (R) dated 18.02.2016 * Insurance Service 81/2016 (R) dated 24.03.2016 * Hotel Expenses paid to M/s. Kuoni Business Travel India Pvt. Ltd., and payments to other service providers 120/2016 (R) dated 11.04.2016 * Services by Hotel for short-term accommodation, * Tour Operator Service paid to M/s. Kuoni Business Travel India Pvt. Ltd. 128/2016 (R) dated 04.05.2016 * Communication Charges * Other Rental Charges * Travel Charges th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit is a beneficial legislation and it should be construed liberally so as to upheld the letter and spirit of such beneficial piece of legislation and a narrow interpretation would read down the benefit given by the legislature and defeat the very purpose of enacting of such beneficial legislation. Therefore, the denial of the refund only on the basis of non-disclosure of the cenvat credit in ST-3 return is not legally sustainable and therefore, I set aside the rejection of refund on this ground. Further I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed that the appellants have not submitted any documents to prove their contention that they have rightly availed the cenvat credit. It appears that both the authorities have not examined all the documents which have been filed by the appellant in support of their refund claim. In view of this, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority to examine the refund claim on the basis of other documents filed by the appellant. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original authority. The original authority will provide adequate opportunity to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
