9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket research, requirement of quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, etc. Thus, the definition provides for credit of both types of input services, the benefit of which is either received directly or indirectly. There is no such restriction in the definition under Rule 2(l) - the Order of the Court below is non-speaking and cryptic. Further, no penalty is exigible in the facts and circumstances as the issue is wholly interpretational. Accordingly, the penalty imposed and retained by the Court below under Rule 15 of CCR read with Sec 78 of the Act is set aside. Appeal allowed by remanding the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to decide the SCN afresh, after considering the relevant Circular and the precedent decisions of various Courts as well as the explanations and clarifications provided by the Assessee. - HON'BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MR. A. K. JYOTISHI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) None for the Appellant Shri Chittaranjan Wagh Prakash , AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per : ANIL CHOUDHARY ] The Appellant herein is a 100% EOU registered with Software Technology Park of India ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - was disallowed towards annual maintenance service of Air Condition/Ductable split air condition/Blue Star cassette Sanyo. Further, an amount of Rs.63,337/- was disallowed on services received from outside India on the allegation that Appellant has failed to produce relevant documents evidencing payment of appropriate service tax and the invoices/documents issued by the service providers. Further, interest was demanded on the amount disallowed and equal amount of penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of CCR read with Sec 78 of the Act. 8. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to reject the Appeal save and except, he reduced the amount of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR to Rs.3,50,000/-, observing that the SCN nowhere mentions of any suppression of facts or malafide, etc., on the part of the Assessee. 9. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before this Tribunal, inter alia, on the following grounds: a) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected all submissions, contentions, representations, case laws, etc., without considering proper interpretation of Act, Rules, Circulars, Notifications, etc., and without consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Commissioner (Appeals) has heavily relied on the decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd., vs Commissioner [2009 (240) ELT 640 (SC)] and other case laws cited in the Order, which relates to the inputs for manufacture of goods, whereas the Appellant is a service provider and the ratio of the said case laws does not have any application to the set of facts in the case of the Appellant. i) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly confirmed the levy of interest when the Appellant has not at all utilized any Cenvat credit, but it is only a claim for refund, which has not been granted and the ratio of the case law cited is not applicable to the present case and more so when the Cenvat credit is reversed. j) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly retained the penalty of Rs.3,50,000/-, when the Appellant has not at all utilized Cenvat credit, but only made a claim for refund, which has not been granted and the ratio of the case law cited is not applicable to the present case and more so when the Cenvat credit is reversed. 10. Learned AR for Revenue supports the Impugned Order. 11. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the Appellant had given the cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zg) Management, Maintenance or Repairs Training Employees 65(105)(zzc) Commercial Training or Coaching AMC charges 65(105)(zzg) Management, Maintenance or Repairs Consultancy fees 65(105)(r) Management/Business Consultancy 12. It is further contended that the aforementioned services are required by the Appellant in provision of their output services, being software development and it would not be possible to carry out their business without the aforementioned input services. Admittedly, the Appellant does not undertake any domestic business and their entire turnover comprises of export turnover only. Thus, there is no question of any utilization of the input tax credit for payment of any output tax and/or utilization of input tax credit. We further find that the Court below has rejected the input tax credit merely, on the nexus theory, observing that there is no direct nexus of input services in dispute, with the output services provided. We further find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
