M/s. INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL TAX, PUDUCHERRY
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 765 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 5-10-2018
ST/40035/2018 to ST/40039/2018 – 42563-42567/2018
Service Tax
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member
For the Appellant : Shri S. Ramachandran, Cons.
For the Respondent : Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR)
ORDER
The appellants are 100% EOU and are engaged in the service of Information Technology Services, namely, e-publishing of books. For providing such output services, they availed various input services and filed refund claim for the unutilized Cenvat credit. They had later filed revised refund claim and the refund sanctioning authority sanctioned the claim. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing to deny the credit in respect of certain services pursuant to the verification of their ER-2 returns. After due process of law, the original authority allowed
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ailed. He submitted that Professional Services were availed by the appellants from Mr. Murali Ramachandran for training the employees and the services would fall under Commercial Coaching and Training Services. That they have also availed services of M/s. Transfolign Consulting LLP for improving business strategy, which would fall under Management & Business Consultancy Services. That both these services are eligible for credit as they fall within the definition of “input services”. The appellants had also availed Rent-a-Cab Services for providing transport facilities for the employees. The credit to the tune of Rs. 28,697/- has been disallowed under this category. An amount of Rs. 2,34,918/- has been demanded stating that the said credit is not eligible. In fact, the appellants on being pointed out that such credit is wrongly availed had already reversed the credit of Rs. 2,34,918/-. When the refund claim was filed, the appellants realized that the said credit has been wrongly availed
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
her, though it is contended by the appellants that they have reversed the credit of Rs. 2,34,918/-, no evidence has been produced for such reversal. He submitted that this aspect requires verification. With regard to Rent-a-Cab Services, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that Clause B of the exclusion part of the definition of “input services” specifically states that the services provided in relation to Motor Vehicles is not eligible unless the motor vehicles are capital goods for the service provider. Therefore, the credit on Rent-a-Cab service is not eligible.
5. Heard both sides.
6. With regard to the demand of Rs. 2,92,957/- upheld in impugned order,the learned consultant has given the details of this amount in the table furnished above. It is submitted by him that the issue in respect of Meal Voucher to the tune of Rs. 3,892/- is not contested by appellants. The demand in this regard is, therefore, upheld.
7. With regard to the Professional Charges to the tune of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
y learned consultant that they have reversed the credit coming to know that such credit is not eligible. He has adverted to page 258 of the appeal book to state that the said amount though originally claimed for refund had been given up by the appellants later by filing revised refund claim. Even though, the appellants contend to have reversed such credit, this is not clearly brought out from the records. I am, therefore, of the view that the said issue requires verification by the adjudicating authority. For the limited purpose of verifying, whether the appellants have already reversed the credit wrongly availed by them to the tune of Rs. 2,34,918/-, I remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. On this very same issue, if the appellants have reversed the credit before the issuance of the show-cause notice, there shall be no penalties in respect of this issue as per the decision laid in the case of M/s. Strategic Engineering Ltd. For the limited purpose of verification in this re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =