M/s. INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL TAX, PUDUCHERRY

2018 (10) TMI 765 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – Professional Charges – Management & Business Consultancy Services – Rent-a-Cab Services – denial of credit on the ground that these are not input services.

Professional Charges – Held that:- The appellants have availed such services which are necessary for their output services. The credit in respect of Professional Charges to the tune of ₹ 15,450/- is, therefore, allowed.

Rent-a-Cab Services – Held that:- The appellants have not furnished any evidence to show that the motor vehicles used for such services are capital goods for the service provider. As per the exclusion clause in the definition of “input services”, the credit availed for Rent-a-Cab Service is not eligible – demand upheld.

Local sales – The appellants originally availed credit to the tune of ₹ 2,34,918/- in respect of local sales and it is argued by learned consultant that they have reversed the credit coming to kn

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ces pursuant to the verification of their ER-2 returns. After due process of law, the original authority allowed part of the credit and confirmed part of the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside part of the demand but, however, confirmed the demand to the tune of ₹ 2,92,957/-. Hence, this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant the learned consultant Shri S. Ramachandran appeared and argued the matter. The details of the credit disallowed by the authorities below are shown in the table as under: (Amount: in Rs.) Sl.No. Name of Input Service Amount considered as ineligible by Commissioner (Appeals) 01 Meal Voucher 3,892 02 Professional Charges 15,450 03 Rent-a-Cab 38,697 04 Local Sales 2,34,918 Total 2,92,957 3. The learned consultant submitted that the appellants are not pressing the issue with regard to Meal Vouchers. The credit in respect of Professional Charges to the tune of ₹ 15,450/- has been disallowed statin

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

18/-. When the refund claim was filed, the appellants realized that the said credit has been wrongly availed and they reversed the credit and filed revised refund claim. Since such credit has been already reversed, the further demand on the said credit cannot sustain. In any case, he submitted that the demand of interest and penalty on such amount cannot sustain since the appellants have already reversed the credit. 4. The learned Authorised Representative Shri R. Subramaniyan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that at the stage of adjudication, the original authority had allowed part of the credit and had only disallowed credit in respect of certain services. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the claim of credit to the tune of ₹ 2,92,957/- and had remanded the appeals to the original authority for verification with respect to ₹ 22,36,561/-. With respect to the contentions put forward by the appellants, he submitted that the appellants have fai

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ed by appellants. The demand in this regard is, therefore, upheld. 7. With regard to the Professional Charges to the tune of ₹ 15,450/-, it is submitted by the appellants that these charges were paid by the appellant for availing services of Commercial Coaching and Training Services as well as Management Consultancy Services. I am convinced that the appellants have availed such services which are necessary for their output services. The credit in respect of Professional Charges to the tune of ₹ 15,450/- is, therefore, allowed. 8. The amount of ₹ 38,697/- was availed by the appellants for Rent-a-Cab Services. As rightly argued by the learned Authorised Representative, the appellants have not furnished any evidence to show that the motor vehicles used for such services are capital goods for the service provider. As per the exclusion clause in the definition of input services , I find that the credit availed for Rent-a-Cab Service is not eligible. The demand in this resp

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Leave a Reply