3D PLM Software Solutions Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, CE & ST Raigadh
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1382 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 28-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/86469 & 86481\/2018 – A\/87224-87225\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate with Ms. Shraddha Seth, C.A. for appellant
\nShri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nThese appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing 'Information Technology Service<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also considered certain input services for the purpose of refund benefit. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the service tax refund in respect of catering service and rent-a-cab service, on the ground that such service has been used by the appellant for personal consumption of its employees and thus, such service has no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n vice tax paid in respect of rent-a-cab service, I am of the view that the impugned order denying such refund benefit cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the impugned order sustains, so far as it denied the refund benefit on rent-a-cab service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 3D PLM Software Solutions Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, CE & ST RaigadhService Tax2018 (9) TMI 1382 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 28-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/86469 & 86481\/2018 – A\/87224-87225\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate with Ms. Shraddha Seth, C.A. for appellant Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) for … Continue reading “3D PLM Software Solutions Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, CE & ST Raigadh”<\/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-13980","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13980","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=13980"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13980\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not pressing for denial of refund benefit in respect of rent-a-cab service. However, he contended that catering service was availed and utilized by the appellant as per the H.R. Policy adopted by the appellant Company and such service<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6.1 With regard to catering service, the fact is not on dispute that the appellant had availed the services of the caterer for providing the catering facility to its employees, working within its business premises. Since providing catering facilities to the employees within the business premises is as per the Human Resource Policy, adopted by the appellant, the service tax paid on such service, in my opinion, should be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of refund benefit. Furth<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n