9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e definition of BSS mentioned above, the services rendered by ABMCPL to their group companies would rightly fall under the category of Business Support Service - It is observed that ABMCPL has been rightly paying Service Tax under BSS for the services rendered by them to their group companies. The department has also not disputed the payment of service tax by ABMCPL under the category of BSS. The Appellant referred the Board Circular No.102/3/2009-S.T. dated 23.02.2009 and TRU s Letter No. 334/4/2006-TRU, dated 28.02.2006 which clarified the scope of BSS. As per the Board Circular, services which are in the nature of assistance or support provided by the principal to the service recipient would fall under BSS. In the present case, the services rendered by ABMCPL being in the nature of support service provided to the Appellant, qualify as BSS as defined under section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant availed BSS provided by the ABMCPL, wherein ABMCPL carried on these functions on behalf of the Appellant, thus enabling the Appellant to benefit from specialization in their manufacturing activity and achieve economies of scale. The nature of the activities so performed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and allow group companies to specialize. Accordingly, ABMCPL obtained Service Tax registration under the category of Business Support Service to be provided to the group companies and duly discharged Service Tax thereon. At the end of each month, ABMCPL issued tax invoices charging its total cost on the group companies in the agreed ratio and collected Service Tax under the head of Business Support Service in the tax invoices. The Service Tax collected was duly deposited with the Government and reflected in the periodical returns. 2. Two Show Cause Notices dated 22.02.2012 and 29.06.2012 were issued to the Appellant proposing to deny the CENVAT Credit availed by them on the ground that ABMCPL are not an Input Service Distributor to distribute the service tax paid on BSS to their group companies. The ABMCPL being a distinct person cannot be said to be an office of the Appellant. The said Show Cause Notices were adjudicated vide Order-in- Original dated 04.03.2011(Impugned Order) wherein the CENVAT credit of Rs 1,99,69,247/- availed by the Appellant was denied along with demanding interest and penalty. The Appellant is before us against this impugned order. 3. In their sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the service tax so paid by ABMCPL. The Department never questioned ABMCPL on the BSS being provided by them or even the correctness of payment of Service Tax thereon. It is a well settled law that when no objection has been raised at the end of service provider, and tax paid has been duly accepted by the department, then the availment of credit cannot be questioned at the recipient s end alleging that no services were rendered. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions :- a. Modular Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai [2018 (8) TMI 1691 (Madras HC)] b. Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd.v.CC, Mumbai Central [2023 (4) TMI 922 CESTAT MUMBAI c. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of GST CE, Chennai [2021 (3) TMI 24 CESTAT CHENNAI] d. Amara Raja Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Tirupathi [2016 (43) S.T.R. 601 (Tri.-Hyd.)] e. Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. v. CCE C. [2007 (11) TMI 23 Supreme Court)] 6. The Appellant contended that the Department held that ABMCPL does not fit within the definition of ISD as provided under Rule 2(m) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, merely for the reason that the ABMCPL adopts a particular ratio to alloc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecords. 10. We observe that the Appellant has provided various services to their group companies to enable them to optimize the benefit of specialization and achieve economies of scale. The Appellant claimed that the services provided by ABMCPL to the group companies fall within the definition of Business Support Service defined under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994, which is reproduced below:- support services of business or commerce means services provided in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfillment services, information and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting and processing of transactions, [operational or administrative assistance in any manner], formulation of customer service and pricing policies, infrastructural support services and other transaction processing. Explanation- For the purpose of this clause, the expression infrastructural support services includes providing office along with office utilities, lounge, reception with competent personnel to handle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is also clearly visible from the mails exchanged by ABMCPL with the group companies. 14. Further, most of the activities done by ABMCPL are covered under the inclusive portion of the definition of input services viz. advertisement and market research, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, security, legal services etc. 15. Hence the Appellant is entitled to avail the CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on BSS since they have a nexus with the overall business activity of manufacturing final goods and are essential for the day-to-day operations of the Appellant. 16. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the services rendered by the ABMCPL is rightly classifiable under the category of Business Support Service and ABMCPL has rightly paid Service Tax under the said category. The service tax paid by ABMCPL has been rightly distributed to their group companies, including Appellant. 15. The Appellant has raised the issue of limitation. They stated that the period involved in the Notice is from March 2007 to March 2012 whereas the Show cause Notice was issued on 22.02.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
