2018 (12) TMI 1426 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – repair and maintenance of staff quarters – expenses incurred towards staff welfare services – travelling expenses – membership fees – denial of credit on the ground of nexus – Held that:- Under the unamended definition of input service (effective upto 31.03.2011) the phrase “activities relating to business” was specifically finding place for consideration of the service as input service. The fact is not under dispute that for accomplishing the purpose of the appellant business, the appellant had used and utilized the disputed services. Since the value of taxable service along with service tax paid there-on was considered as business related expenses in the Books of Accounts, the 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 avai
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rder 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 services. During the period October, 2007 to March 2013, the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on various taxable services, including the service tax paid on repair and maintenance of staff quarters, expenses incurred towards staff welfare services, travelling expenses, membership fees etc. Availment of CENVAT Credit on those services were disputed by the department on the ground that such services have no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant and thus, such services cannot
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ted 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-Cestat (b) Xilinx India Technology Services (P) Ltd. – 2016 (44) STR 129 (c) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Greaves Cotton Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 703 (d) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Lupin Ltd. – 2012 (285) ELT 221 (Tri. Mum) 4. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue submits that the disputed services are not conforming to the definition of input service and thus, the appellant should not be eligible for the Cenvat benefit. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. Under the un
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
) 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 original authority for verification of the documentary evidences to be produced by the appellant to demonstrate that the disputed services are conforming to the definition of input services and were in fact, used / utilized for providing the output service. 7. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the matter is remanded to the original authority for passing of fresh adjudication order in line of our above observations. Needless to say, that opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the app
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =