Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 1426 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 15-11-2018
Appeal No. ST/86353/2018 – A/88143/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical)
Shri B. Raichandani, Advocate for appellant
Shri M. Suresh, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
ORDER
Per: S.K. Mohanty
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing “Information Technology Software Service” and “Management, Maintenance or Repair Service”, defined as taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994. For providing such taxable services, the appellant got it registered with the Service Tax department. The appellant avails CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on the input services used for providing those output
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pporting evidences were produced by the appellant to demonstrate that the disputed services can be considered as input service for the Cenvat benefit.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that although under the unamended definition of 'input service” (effective upto 31.03.2011) and the amended definition (with effect from 01.04.2011) the disputed services were clarified as 'input service' for the purposes of availment of Cenvat benefit. He further submits that since the disputed services were used / utilized for providing the output service and such services having been covered under the definition of input service as per the Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the benefit of credit shall not to be denied to the appellant. To support his stand that the disputed services are conforming to the definition of input service, the learned Advocate has relied upon the following decisions rendered by the judicial forums:-
(a) Axis Bank Ltd. v. CCE- 2017-TIOL 3867-Cesta
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
disputed services should be considered as input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Rules for the period upto 31.03.2011. Under the amended definition of Rule 2(l) (with effect from 01.04.2011), the assessee is permitted to avail credit on any service used for providing the output service, excepting the excluded category of services mentioned in the definition of input service. The description of disputed services provided in the impugned order, do not fall under the excluded category provided under Rule 2(l) of the Rules. Therefore, denial of Cenvat benefit on the disputed services on the ground that those services are not confirming to the definition of input service is not proper and justified. However, since the original authority had specifically recorded the findings that the appellant had not produced any documentary evidences to show nexus as well as the eligibility of Cenvat benefit on the disputed services, we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to the origina
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =