9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Certificate. The appellant's claim is that the invoices from Mumbai Unit were addressed to their registered premises at Bangalore, hence the same cannot be denied. The cenvat credit is related to the invoice where the rent was paid for the premises at Mumbai (Bandra) which was claimed to be used for marketing activities. There is no dispute of the fact that the appellant was well aware that all the premises that are used for the manufacturing/marketing purposes are to be registered under centralized registration procedures. Hence, the rent paid on the premises which is not registered cannot be availed as cenvat credit for the simple reason that there is no evidence as such that the above premises was used for marketing or providing any output services, except for stating that the premises used to facilitate business meetings with existing and prospective customers. In view of the specified procedures laid down under Centralized Registration Procedures read with Rule 4 (5) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and in accordance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, the cenvat credit cannot be extended on rent paid on unregistered premises in both the premises of Mumbai. Similarly, the premises at B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner observes that 'the assessee failed to produce the entire documents during the audit in spite of several opportunities provided to them and always argued that they have claimed exemption in the ST-3 returns filed by them as the same is liable for VAT and not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994' - the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further examination based on the documents placed on record by the appellant to prove that VAT has been discharged on the above software. Demand of service tax on services supplied to SEZ units - HELD THAT:- The period of dispute is from October 2008 to March 2009 and as rightly stated by the appellant they are eligible for the benefit of the exemption for the services rendered to the SEZ unit as per the Notification No. 4/2004 dated 31.03.2004. Since no documents were placed before the authorities that these services were used within the SEZ premises for the authorised operations, the same is being remanded for this limited purpose of verification. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Unless any positive allegation of misdeclaration or suppression with intention to evade is brought on record the question of suppression cannot be all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed penalty in terms of provisions of Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also imposed penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for not obtaining registration as required under Section 69 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the above order the appellant is in appeal before us. 3. The Learned Counsel with regard to denial of cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices were issued from an unregistered premises, stated that the appellant carries out centralized billing for all the premises in Bangalore, hence all the branches/premises need to be considered as part of such Centralized Premises for the purpose of service tax liability. It is submitted that documentary evidence such as lease agreements, invoice copies for output services were issued from the unregistered premises on which service tax has been discharged hence cenvat credit cannot be denied only for non-registration of that premises. Relied on the following decisions: * Manipal Advertising Services Versus CCE Mangalore 2010 (19) STR 506 (Tri-Bang), * Portal India Wireless Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore 2012 (27) STR 134 (KAR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial Taxes 2008 (1) TMI 2 (Supreme Court). 3.3 With regard to denial of exemption to goods supplied to SEZ units, it is submitted that during the relevant period Notification 04/2004ST dated 31.03.2004 was the relevant notification based on which all the supplies made to SEZ units were exempted from service tax, hence the order on this issue cannot be sustained. 3.4 Coming to the participation fee for SAP TechEd Event it is submitted that the appellant in order to update and showcase to their customers/ stakeholders or individual participants with the technological news and changes on latest SAP technologies conduct these events and providing such information does not qualify as commercial training and coaching activity, hence not liable to service tax. With regard to sponsorship services, it is submitted that service tax liability on reverse charge was only with the effect from 01 04. 2007, the period of dispute being prior to that they are not liable to service tax. 3.5 Regarding extended period of limitation, it is stated that the impugned order is based on observation made by the audit officers. There has been no miss declaration of facts and all the transactions are ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat Credit Rules the Commissioner was right in invoking suppression and imposing penalty for violation of the same. 5. Heard both sides. The issues to be decided are: A. Whether the appellant is eligible for cenvat credit on the invoices issued from a premises which is not registered under their Centralized Registration Certificate. The appellant had registered 8 premises under the Centralized Registration provisions but the following 6 premises did not figure in their Centralized Registration. Sl.No. Address of Premises which do not find mention in the Service Tax Registration 1. No. 5 Prestige Ridge, Domlur Service Road, Bangalore 2. A-Installation, Sewree Fort Road, Sewree (East), Mumbai 3. Global Delivery Centre, 32, 3rd Floor, ACR Towers, Residency Road, Bangalore. 4. 5th Floor, Platina Building, G-Block, 59th Floor, BKC, Bandhra East, Mumbai-51. 5. 3rd Floor, RMZ Next, Block 2B-2C, Sonnwhalli, Mahadevapuram, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore - 5600016. 6. Anil Khatri, C-3, 245, BDA Layout, C/o SAP India Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Main, Domlur, Bangalore. The cenvat credit was availed on the invoices issued from the above 6 premises two of which are from Bombay and others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the architecture service is used for modernisation/renovation of their premises, cleaning services are used for maintaining a clean environment, club and association services are related to national or internation market trade associations which helps them to update with the latest developments in business. The convention services are also used for day-to-day business operations/meetings. Similarly, design services, event management services, etc., are all services in relation to the activities undertaken by the appellant. Since, individual invoices have not been verified to examine whether these were in relation to the operations rendered by the appellant, we remand the matter to the Commissioner only to examine whether these services were rendered in connection with the operations of the appellant, without questioning the one-to-one corelation. However, all invoices issued from the 6 premises not registered under Centralized Registration are to be denied. C. With regard to demand of service tax on training kits sales as shown in the invoices 9071004688 and 9071004689 dated 22.10.2008, 9071004764 dated 19.11.2008, the Commissioner has observed that these are in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner observes that 'the assessee failed to produce the entire documents during the audit in spite of several opportunities provided to them and always argued that they have claimed exemption in the ST-3 returns filed by them as the same is liable for VAT and not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994'. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further examination based on the documents placed on record by the appellant to prove that VAT has been discharged on the above software. The decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (178) ELT 22 (S.C.) and the decision in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. Vs. CCE and ST, Bangalore 2023 (12) TMI 175 CESTAT Bangalore should also be looked into before rendering any decision in the remand proceedings. E. The next issue is demand of service tax on services supplied to SEZ units. The Commissioner in the impugned order has held that no documentary evidences have been placed on record to prove that the specified services have been used for the authorized operations. It is also held that there was no outright exemption instead the appellant had to pay service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged in development or operation or maintenance of Special Economic Zone, and also includes any person authorised for such purpose by any such developer; (3) "Special Economic Zone" means a zone specified as Special Economic Zone by the Central Government in the notification issued under clause (iii) of Explanation 2 to the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). From the records, it is seen that the period of dispute is from October 2008 to March 2009 and as rightly stated by the appellant they are eligible for the benefit of the exemption for the services rendered to the SEZ unit as per the Notification No. 4/2004 dated 31.03.2004. Since no documents were placed before the authorities that these services were used within the SEZ premises for the authorised operations, the same is being remanded for this limited purpose of verification. F. The appellant has not contested demand of service tax on software maintenance service and on software implementation service. 6. With regard to limitation, the Commissioner has held that but for the audit observations these irregular availment of credit and non-payment of service tax on service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal has categorically held that the departmental authorities are fully aware of the activities undertaken by the assessee during the material period. It had periodically filed returns relating to receipt of inputs and availment of Cenvat credit. It had also filed periodical returns showing payment of excise duty on its final products. Authorities never raised objection to the assessee taking and utilizing Cenvat credit during the material period for payment of duty on its final products as reflected in the monthly ER-1 returns. Therefore, the impugned demand invoking larger period under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Rules read with proviso to Section 11A is not sustainable. The Revenue has not made out a case that the assessee had suppressed any relevant fact from the department or took the Cenvat credit of duty paid with an intention to evade payment of duty on final products. Therefore, it held that, the demand is barred by limitation. None of these facts are disputed. In that view of the matter, as the demand was made beyond the period of one year, it was clearly barred by time and therefore, it was justified in allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
