Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West Versus Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 618 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 6-7-2018
Appeal No. ST\/86605\/2018 – A\/86963\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri M.K. Sarangi, Joint. Commr (AR) for appellant
\nMs. Puloma Dalal, C.A. for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nRevenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Appeals-III), Mumbai. Revenue was assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in allowing the Cenvat benefit in<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n inition of input service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rvice, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) has held that since outdoor catering service is falling under the exclusion clause of such definition, CENVAT credit should not be available to the assessee. Since the issue regarding availment of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, so far as it allowed the Cenvat benefit of outdoor catering service in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order in allowing the Cenvat benefit on outdoor catering service is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of Revenue. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West Versus Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd.Service Tax2018 (8) TMI 618 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 6-7-2018Appeal No. ST\/86605\/2018 – A\/86963\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint. Commr (AR) for appellant Ms. Puloma Dalal, C.A. for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Revenue is in appeal … Continue reading “Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West Versus Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd.”<\/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-13200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13200","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=13200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. On the other hand, learned Consultant appearing for the respondent submits that the services received by the respondent from the service providers were in relation to works contract services and accordingly, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the Cenvat benefit of works contract service to the respondent. In respect of works contract service, her contention is that the services provided by the service providers are not in relation to construction or execution of works contract of the building or the civil structure or part thereof. In this context, learned Consultant has placed reliance on some of the invoices issued by the service providers viz M\/s Hewlett Packard Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd,<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. On perusal of some of the invoices submitted by the <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n