Db Malls Pvt Ltd Versus CGST C.E & C. C-Bhopal
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 1302 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 20-4-2018
Appeal No. ST\/57043\/2013-DB – ST\/A\/51699\/2018-CU[DB]
Service Tax
Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nPresent Shri Narender Singhavi, Advocate for the appellant
\nPresent Shri R.K. Majhi, DR for the respondent
\nPer: Justice Dr. Satish Chandra
\n1. The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 3-7\/2013 dated 21\/01\/2013. The period of dispute is April, 2007 to March, 2012.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in providing the services under the category of “Renting of Immovable Property” in mall. They have availed and utilized the Cenvat Credit of Central Excise duty paid on cement, glass and steels and Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on architect service and Works Contract Services toward discharge of Service Tax on renting of immovable<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n , Visakhapatnam-II vs. Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd. wherein in Para 7 the Hon'ble High Court has ruled as follows:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ellant is entitled for availing Cenvat Credit. The said order is reproduced below:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ices used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and 3 Appeal No.ST\/3089\/2012 quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Db Malls Pvt Ltd Versus CGST C.E & C. C-BhopalService Tax2018 (5) TMI 1302 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 20-4-2018Appeal No. ST\/57043\/2013-DB – ST\/A\/51699\/2018-CU[DB]Service TaxJustice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Present Shri Narender Singhavi, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri R.K. Majhi, DR for the … Continue reading “Db Malls Pvt Ltd Versus CGST C.E & C. C-Bhopal”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11871","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11871","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11871"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11871\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “In a pliant reading of both the above definitions would show that, unless excluded, all goods used in relation to manufacture of final product and for any other purpose used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service are eligible for Cenvat Credit.”
\nRelying on the said ruling, in Para 17 Single Member Bench of this Tribunal in the above stated case of DLF Cyber City Developer Ltd. has held as follows:-
\n “In view of the above analysis, I hold that as all the inputs\/input service has been used by the appellant for construction of a building which has been let out by the appellant and paying service tax thereon under the category of Renting of Immovable Service therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential r<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Considering the fact that the said issue has already been examined by this Tribunal in the case of DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd., vide Final Order No.60018\/2018 dated 03\/01\/2018, this Tribunal has observed that the inputs, capital goods and input services used by the appellants for providing output services, in terms of Rule 2 (a) (ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit. Further, this Tribunal observed as under:
\n “It is undisputed that the services are utilized for bringing to existence building which is used by the appellants for hospitability business and is used for rendering output services like mandap keeper and health club and fitness centre and dry cleaning service and internet café services. It is an unimaginable that a hotel can render these services without a building in its place. In our considered view, the input services are avai<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n It can be seen from the above reproduced sub-rule, that input services includes the services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation of premises of provider of output services. In the case in hand, the definition is reproduced as above categorically will apply and the clarification given by the Board in CBEC Circular dated 04\/01\/2008 is going beyond the definition as<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n