9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsored programs and training etc. Therefore, these cannot be set to be used by the officers of the company for private purposes. Memberships of the clubs - HELD THAT:- Similarly, the memberships of the clubs are taken in respect of Golf Club where the company sponsors a tournament or memberships of various international professional clubs are taken. There is force in the argument of the appellant. The definition of Input Service is vast and encompasses all the activities that are required for the furtherance of the business. The exclusion that is put in place from 01.04.2011 appears to be in respect of services which are not primarily used for personal use of the officers or staff. It is found that no evidence to the effect that the disputed services are availed primarily for the personal use has been brought forth by the SCN and therefore, the submissions of the appellants cannot be brushed aside. Asset Management Services - HELD THAT:- Rule 2(l) includes services which are used in relation to Financing of the Company. The definition further provides that the input services can be directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Financing is an integr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the SCNs are very vague and do not specify the reasons as to why the said credit availed by the appellants is not available under the particular heading. He submits that the SCN and adjudication order simply give the definition of the input service and hold that the credit availed by the appellants is not admissible. Learned Counsel submits that the issue is no longer res integra having been decided by various Benches of the Tribunal and High Courts; in their own case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No.348-349/MA/GGN/2009 dated 17.11.2009 and the Original Authority vide OIO No.29-33/AC/Demand/Div-Rewari/202324 dated 27.05.2023; OIO No.103-109/SA/CCE/2013 dated 30.07.2013 and OIO No.140-142/SA/CCE/2013 dated 23.10.2013 have decided that various input services discussed in the impugned orders have a nexus with their business and thus are eligible for CENVAT credit. 3. He further relies on the following cases in respect of the various input services on which they have availed credit were held to be admissible by Courts and Tribunals. He also relies on some cases to augment his submissions on the discrepancies in the SCN. 3.1. Credit on Construction Service; Learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise, Guntur, [2014] 33 STR 598 3.3. Credit availed on Interior Decorator s Service: Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore [2011 (22) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.-Bangalore)] Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., [2014] 43 GST 333 Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. Lupin Ltd., [2012] 28 STR 291 Commissioner of C. EX., Ahmedabad-II Vs. Cadila healthcare ltd., 2013 (30) S.T.R. 3 3.4. Credit availed on Architect Service or Architect and Interior Designer Service: Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore [2011 (22) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.- Bangalore)] Nvidia Graphics Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-service Tax, [2016 SCC Online CESTAT 4508] refer para 4 Godawari Power Ispat Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2018 SCC Online CESTAT 3596 Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, CESTAT) [2011 24 STR 491 (Bangalore CESTAT)] para 3 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex Delhi- III, [2017 (47) STR 273] J.P Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T. Mumbai, [2016 (42) STR 196] Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. Lupin Ltd. [2012 28 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI [2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 182 (Tri. - Kolkata)] Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2018 (364) E.L.T. 159 (Tri. - Mumbai)] Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd., [2016] 42 STR 570 3.9. Credit availed on repairing of motor vehicles or after sale service: Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore [2011 (22) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.- Bangalore)] Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. J.K. Cement Works, [2009] 14 STR 538 Cadmach Machinery Co. (p) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2013 (31) STR 33] CCE vs. CCL Products (India) Ltd. 2009 (16) STR 305 Dr. Reddy's Lab Ltd. Vs. CCE [2010 (19) STR 71] J.K. Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-11, [2011] 31 STT 128 3.10. Credit availed on Outdoor catering Service: Palmtech Institutions India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Jaipur, [2015] 38 STR 54 Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. HCL Technologies, [2015] 37 STR 716 Manhattan Associates (India) Development Centre (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, [2015] 52 GST 1032 3.11. Credit availed on Insurance Auxiliary Service: Birla Corporation Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., S.T. Cus., Bangalore-II [2016 (42) S.T.R. 932 (Tri. -Bang)] Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Surat Vs. Haubach Colour (P.) Ltd., [2016] 53 GST 334, Olam Information Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, [2022] 64 GSTL 485, GMR Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21325- 21326 of 2016, Usha Martin Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T., Ludhiana, 2020 (37)G.S.T.L. 220 Cross Tab Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of CGST, Mumbai East, 2021(55) G.S.T.L. 29, RMZ Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Tax, Bengaluru East, 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 599, Commr. of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd., 2009 (16) S.T.R. 410, Commr. of C. Ex. Cus., Guntur Vs. Madhu Steels, 2009 (14) S.T.R. 798. 6. Learned Counsel submits that the SCNs are issued on the basis of Audit Report; no independent investigation is done and therefore are not maintainable as held in Swastik Tin Works Vs. CCE, Kanpur [1986 (25) ELT 798]. He further submits that suppression cannot be alleged that when the SCN is based on Audit objection, suppression cannot be alleged and SCN issued after one yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008(232) E.L.T. 169 C.C.E., Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.- 2010(20) 577(Mum.) Sundram Fasteners case reported in 2011(271) ELT. 318(T) 8. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The dispute in these appeals is about to various input services i.e. Construction Service, Works Contract Service (for ISD), Interior Decorator s Service (for plant and ISD), Architect and Interior Designer Service (for plant), Mandap Keeper s Service (for ISD), Pandal and Shamiana Service (for plant and ISD), Mandap with Catering Service (for plant), Photography Service (for plant and ISD), Club Association Service (for ISD), Repairing of Motor Vehicles (for ISD), Architect Service (for ISD), Outdoor Catering Service (for ISD), After Sale Service (for plant), Insurance Auxiliary Services, Broadcasting Services, Fashion Designing Services, On-Line information and data base access/ retrieval, Share transfer Agent, Asset Portfolio and fund management. 9. In respect of the most of the above services, the issue is settled in favour of the appellants as per the cases cited above. However, the main objection of the Revenue appears to be in respect of services like Construction Service, Architect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order to maximize the returns on the investments is for the purpose of furthering of the business. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants being a Public Limited Company has to take care of finances and such an activity includes proper investment. We find that Tribunal in the case of FIAMM Minda (supra) held that Banking and other financial services are covered in the inclusive part of definition of input service under the head financing . Further, the said services have been used/ utilized for accomplishing the purpose of business. Thus, CENVAT credit of service tax paid on such service is available to the manufacturer/ service provider, in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. 11. Further, we find that, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Show Cause Notices issued in this regard do not bring out the reasons as to why credit availed by the appellants on certain services is not admissible to them. There is a bare reproduction of the definition of Input Service and averment that in view of the same, the services utilized by the appellants do not have any relation with the activity of the appellants up to the point of delivery/ removal as the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
