Broadridge Financial Solutions India Pvt. Ltd Versus CCT, Secunderabad GST
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1252 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 20-2-2019
Appeals No. ST\/30064\/2018, ST\/30065\/2018, ST\/30066\/2018 – A\/30222 \u2013 30224\/2019
Service Tax
Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)<\/p>\n
Shri Purushotham Reddy, CA for the Appellant.<\/p>\n
Shri Arun Kumar, Jt. Commissioner \/AR for the Respondent.<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Per: Mr. P.V. Subba Rao<\/p>\n
1. All these appeals are on the same issue in respect of the same appellant and hence are being disposed of together.<\/p>\n
2. The appellant herein exports software services. They avail the CENVAT Credit on inputs and input services under CCR 2004. After so availing, they have filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of inputs and input services which were used in export of services. These refund claims were allowed partly and rejected partly by the original authority. Aggrieved, the app<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ract service was excluded from Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004; he asserts that the exclusion was related to construction of buildings and they had hired the services to paint the building which is not the same as construction of building and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of this credit as well as consequential refund. Insofar as the third issue of submission of documents is concerned, he admits that they were not able to substantiate their claims with proper documentation during the relevant period because they had misplaced their records but have since been able to find all the records and will be able to justify each of their claim with proper documentation as required.<\/p>\n 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the first appellate authority and explains that to the extent relief was admissible, they were given relief by the first appellate authority. Insofar as the credit which is sought to be denied on the ground that it is specifically excluded under Rule 2(l), it is his asse<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ppellant claimed refund of Rs. 2,33,33,967\/-, of which the lower authority sanctioned an amount of Rs. 2,22,21,689\/- and rejected an amount of Rs. 11,12,278\/- on the ground of lack of nexus with the output service and non production of documents. The first appellate authority in the impugned order allowed their appeal except that to the extent of Rs. 10,15,812\/- on the ground as listed in table-I of the Order-in-Appeal, as follows.<\/p>\n (b) Appeal No. ST\/30065\/2018: This appeal involved denial of credit of Rs. 70,881\/- on the ground of lack of nexus with the output service and an amount of Rs. 7,05,215\/- on the ground that the documents were not submitted or that they were excluded under Rule 2(l) as input services. The first appellate authority has allowed refund of Rs. 57,786\/- which was rejected on the lack of nexus and denied refund of Rs. 13,095\/- on the ground that the appellants have not insisted on the input credit. Of the credit of Rs. 7,05,215\/- rejected by the lower authority,<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n refund on this count. Insofar as the allegation that there is no nexus between the input service and the output service is concerned, once the credit of CENVAT is allowed, refund of the same cannot be denied. In fact when the CENVAT credit is wrongly availed, the same needs to be recovered from the appellant, by issuing of an appropriate show cause notice. As far as the cases where credit was taken when the specific service clearly excluded from Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 is concerned, it is true that the credit first be denied. However, where the appellant is not entitled to the credit in the first place, it is inconceivable to refund the same. This pertains to such cases where the rule specifically excludes certain types of services from the scope of input service. As far as the cases where the invoices were not in the name of the appellant are concerned, what is relevant is whether the appellant had received those services in production of their output services, even if there is some er<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n giving refund of the same under Rule 5 of CCR 2004.<\/p>\n (c) Wherever refund was denied because of the appellant's inability to produce the necessary documents, but which the appellant now claims to be able to produce, need to be examined and credit should be allowed to the extent that they are able to substantiate their claims.<\/p>\n 7. All the appeals are remitted to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claims as indicated herein above.<\/p>\n (Pronounced in open court on 20.02.2019)<\/p>\n ============= Sl.No.<\/p>\n Disputed input Amt.<\/p>\n service<\/p>\n involved<\/p>\n Rs.<\/p>\n Lower<\/p>\n authority's<\/p>\n findings<\/p>\n Appellant's contentions<\/p>\n Decision of Appellate forum.<\/p>\n 1<\/p>\n 2<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n 4<\/p>\n 1<\/p>\n Business Support<\/p>\n 1081<\/p>\n Services\/<\/p>\n Business Auxiliary<\/p>\n services-<\/p>\n (meal<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n coupons)<\/p>\n Management,<\/p>\n maintenance<\/p>\n or<\/p>\n service<\/p>\n Services<\/p>\n utilized not<\/p>\n in or in<\/p>\n relation to<\/p>\n the output<\/p>\n services<\/p>\n rendered.<\/p>\n Services<\/p>\n utilized not<\/p>\n in<\/p>\n in o<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ; hence<\/p>\n service tax paid on such<\/p>\n services is directly in nexus<\/p>\n with the services exported by<\/p>\n the appellants and is eligible.<\/p>\n The categorized services are<\/p>\n specifically used for providing<\/p>\n output services and not<\/p>\n covered in exclusion part of<\/p>\n the definition of input service';<\/p>\n the services are required for<\/p>\n the maintenance or upkeep of<\/p>\n the hardware equipment and<\/p>\n other infrastructure of the<\/p>\n appellant without which they<\/p>\n cannot perform their business<\/p>\n operations;<\/p>\n \u00e0\u00a4\u2022\u00e0\u00a5\u2021\u00e0\u00a4\u00a8\u00e0\u00a5\u008d\u00e0\u00a4\u00a6\u00e0\u00a5\u008d\u00e0\u00a4\u00b0\u00e0\u00a5\u20ac\u00e0\u00a4\u00af<\/p>\n 32412<\/p>\n yeas<\/p>\n \u00e0\u00a4\u008f\u00e0\u00a4\u2022<\/p>\n \u00e0\u00a4\u0153\u00e0\u00a5\u20ac \u00e0\u00a4\u008f\u00e0\u00a4\u00b8 \u00e0\u00a4\u0178\u00e0\u00a5\u20ac<\/p>\n \u00e0\u00a4\u2020\u00e0\u00a4\u00af\u00e0\u00a5\u0081\u00e0\u00a4\u2022\u00e0\u00a5\u008d\u00e0\u00a4\u00a4 \u00e0\u00a4\u2022\u00e0\u00a4\u00be<\/p>\n Commissioner of Central Excise &<\/p>\n \u00e0\u00a4\u2022\u00e0\u00a4\u00be \u00e0\u00a4\u2022\u00e0\u00a4\u00be\u00e0\u00a4\u00b0\u00e0\u00a5\u008d\u00e0\u00a4\u00af\u00e0\u00a4\u00be\u00e0\u00a4\u00b2\u00e0\u00a4\u00af<\/p>\n GST<\/p>\n bad *<\/p>\n 6<\/p>\n The service pertains to meal coupons<\/p>\n which are for personal consumption of<\/p>\n the employees of the company and<\/p>\n specifically excluded from the<\/p>\n definition of input s<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n IA<\/p>\n TECHNOLOGY SERVICES [2016<\/p>\n (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. Hyd.)] (pest<\/p>\n control service and Photo copying<\/p>\n service) ;Denial of refund to this extent<\/p>\n is not legally sustainable and therefore<\/p>\n set aside with consequential relief and<\/p>\n the impugned order stands modified to<\/p>\n this extent.<\/p>\n OIA NO.: HYD-SVTAX-000-AP2-0192-17-18-ST DT 28.08.2017 87,016<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n Works<\/p>\n Service<\/p>\n Contract 8,48,391<\/p>\n 4<\/p>\n General<\/p>\n Insurance<\/p>\n 1,27,118<\/p>\n Exclusion<\/p>\n clause of<\/p>\n rule 2(1) of<\/p>\n the CCR,<\/p>\n 5.<\/p>\n Chartered<\/p>\n Accountant's<\/p>\n Service<\/p>\n 9450<\/p>\n No Invoice<\/p>\n 6<\/p>\n Installation<\/p>\n equipment<\/p>\n of 39,222<\/p>\n Total<\/p>\n 11,12,278<\/p>\n Exclusion<\/p>\n clause of<\/p>\n rule 2(1) of<\/p>\n the CCR,<\/p>\n 2004<\/p>\n 2004<\/p>\n No proper<\/p>\n invoice<\/p>\n These services are used by<\/p>\n the appellants in the<\/p>\n renovation and modernization<\/p>\n of the premises and the<\/p>\n services are specifically<\/p>\n covered in the inclusive part of<\/p>\n the definition of the input<\/p>\n service as per Rule 2 (I) of th<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n r<\/p>\n The denial of credit \/refund was on<\/p>\n the ground of Exclusion clause under<\/p>\n Rule 2(1) of the CCR, 2004; the<\/p>\n appellants have not substantiated their<\/p>\n claim with documentary evidence;<\/p>\n the onus casts with the appellants to<\/p>\n prove their eligibility to avail the said<\/p>\n credit; thus the appellants have not<\/p>\n discharged their onus in term of Rule<\/p>\n 9(6) of the CCR, 2004; Denial of<\/p>\n refund to this extent is legally<\/p>\n sustainable and accordingly is upheld.<\/p>\n The denial of credit \/refund was on the<\/p>\n ground of Exclusion clause under Rule<\/p>\n 2(1) of the CCR, 2004; the appellants<\/p>\n have not substantiated their claim with<\/p>\n documentary evidence; the document<\/p>\n dated 12.01.2016 submitted in respect<\/p>\n AGC Networks Ltd., indicates the<\/p>\n category of service as WCS in which<\/p>\n case the onus casts with the<\/p>\n appellants to prove their eligibility to<\/p>\n avail the said credit; thus the<\/p>\n appellants have not discharged their<\/p>\n onus in term so Rule 9(6) of the CCR,<\/p>\n 2004; D<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Broadridge Financial Solutions India Pvt. Ltd Versus CCT, Secunderabad GSTService Tax2019 (2) TMI 1252 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 20-2-2019Appeals No. ST\/30064\/2018, ST\/30065\/2018, ST\/30066\/2018 – A\/30222 \u2013 30224\/2019Service TaxMr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Purushotham Reddy, CA for the Appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Jt. Commissioner \/AR for the Respondent. ORDER … Continue reading “Broadridge Financial Solutions India Pvt. Ltd Versus CCT, Secunderabad GST”<\/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-16930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16930","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=16930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nDocument 1
\nTABLE-1<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nDocument 2
\nTotal<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n