9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2025 (6) TMI 5 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - appellant were not following the procedure laid down under Rule 6 (3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - There is no denial of the fact that the appellant has been receiving the taxable services from M/s. IHCL and others as named in the Show Cause Notice. This clarifies that the appellants were entitled to claim the Cenvat credit thereof. The issue here is with respect to the availment of 100% Cenvat Credit on the services when the appellant has been receiving various other non-taxable services. It is observed that this issue of availment of 100% Cenvat Credit despite being the collaborative agreement of receiving several services by the hospitality industry stands already covered by the decision of this Bench itself in addition to various other decisions. This decision has been upheld even by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case titled as Commissioner vs. Piem Hotels Limited holding that The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that Management Consultancy services received by the assessee a hotel company from another hotel company i.e. Indian Hotels Company Ltd. being in the nature of advice consultancy and assistance in respect of its management cannot be considered as Franchisee services and the assessee is entitled to avail 100% Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on such services and the same cannot be restricted to 20% in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Conclusion - i) The services provided by IHCL to the appellant are management consultancy services and not business auxiliary services for the relevant period. ii) The appellant is entitled to 100% Cenvat credit on service tax paid on such services for the period up to 31.03.2011. Appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Classification of Services Provided by IHCL Relevant legal framework and precedents: The classification of services under the Finance Act, 1994 and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is critical. Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 governs the availment and reversal of credit where input services are used for both taxable and exempted services. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 specifically excludes certain services, including Management Consultancy Services, from reversal requirements, allowing 100% credit. The definition of "Business Auxiliary Services" was amended w.e.f. 01.05.2011 to include "operational or administrative assistance in any manner." Court's interpretation and reasoning: The department initially held that the services provided by IHCL were comprehensive and collaborative, involving operation, running, maintenance, and promotion of the hotel, effectively exercising actual power over hotel operations. Consequently, these services were classified as "Business Auxiliary Services," which do not fall under the exempted category in sub-rule (5) of Rule 6, thereby limiting Cenvat credit. The appellant contended that the services fall within the ambit of "Management or Business Consultancy Services," which entitles them to 100% credit under Rule 6(5). The appellant further argued that the amendment expanding the definition of Business Auxiliary Services was effective only from 01.05.2011, whereas the dispute period is prior to that, making the department's classification and consequent denial of credit unsustainable. The Tribunal examined the contract terms and prior judicial pronouncements, including decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal itself, which have consistently held that such services rendered by IHCL to hotel companies are management consultancy services and not business auxiliary services for the relevant period. Key evidence and findings: The contract between the appellant and IHCL delineates IHCL's role as institution and supervision of operating policies, formulating procedures, planning advertising, public relations, licensing negotiations, and supervision of licensees, which are quintessential management consultancy activities rather than mere auxiliary services. Application of law to facts: Since the services qualify as management consultancy services under the definitions prevailing during the period, the appellant was entitled to 100% Cenvat credit without reversal under Rule 6. Treatment of competing arguments: The department's reliance on the collaborative and comprehensive nature of the services to classify them as business auxiliary was rejected because the statutory amendment expanding business auxiliary services' definition was not applicable during the relevant period. The appellant's reliance on binding precedents was accepted. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the services rendered by IHCL were management consultancy services and not business auxiliary services for the period under dispute, entitling the appellant to full Cenvat credit. Issue 2: Entitlement to 100% Cenvat Credit on Input Services Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 mandates reversal of credit attributable to exempted services, except for input services listed in sub-rule (5), which includes management consultancy services. The notification dated 01.03.2011 omitted sub-rule (5) effective 01.04.2011, impacting credit availment post that date. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that for the period up to 31.03.2011, the appellant was entitled to 100% credit on management consultancy services even if used partly for exempted services. The department's denial of credit based on the notification omitting sub-rule (5) was held to be wrongly applied for the period before 01.04.2011. Key evidence and findings: The adjudicating authority itself recognized the appellant's entitlement to 100% credit on such services during the relevant period but denied relief on the basis of the notification's retrospective application, which was incorrect. Application of law to facts: Since the notification omitting sub-rule (5) was effective only from 01.04.2011, the appellant's claim for full credit for the period prior to that date was valid. Treatment of competing arguments: The department's argument that the credit reversal was mandatory was rejected in light of statutory provisions and binding judicial decisions upholding full credit on management consultancy services during the relevant period. Conclusion: The appellant was correctly entitled to 100% Cenvat credit on management consultancy services for the period prior to 01.04.2011. Issue 3: Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation Relevant legal framework: Extended period of limitation under service tax laws is invoked in cases of fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant contended that extended period was wrongly invoked. The Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds or evidence in the record to uphold the extended period invocation, implicitly rejecting the department's contention. Conclusion: The invocation of extended period was not justified. Issue 4: Whether Classification Can Be Changed by the Appellant or Department Legal framework and precedents: Classification of services is a question of law and fact, and once settled by judicial pronouncements, cannot be arbitrarily changed by either party. Court's reasoning: The appellant argued that classification as management consultancy services was settled and binding, supported by multiple Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that classification cannot be altered to deny rightful credit. Conclusion: The classification as management consultancy services stands binding and cannot be changed to business auxiliary services for the relevant period. Issue 5: Reliance on Judicial Precedents Relevant precedents: The appellant relied on several Supreme Court decisions including Commissioner vs. Piem Hotels Ltd., Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Taj GVK Hotels & Resorts, and Newlight Hotels & Resorts Limited, which held that services provided by hotel chains in similar contexts qualify as management consultancy services and entitle the recipient to full Cenvat credit. Court's reasoning: The Tribunal noted that these precedents are binding and squarely applicable to the present facts, reinforcing the appellant's entitlement to full credit and invalidating the department's denial. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the appellant's reliance on binding precedents and applied them to allow the appeal partly. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable on 16 services as mentioned in the said provision. One of such services is of Management Consultancy Service defined under Section 65 (105) (r) of Finance Act, 1994. According to the said provision 100% credit on the Management Consultancy Service is specifically allowed even if it is partially used in providing the exempted services. The rule clarifies that the credit taken on Management Consultancy Service is not liable for proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We accordingly hold that the amount of Cenvat credit was not supposed to be reversed vis-`a-vis Management Consultancy Services." "The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that Management Consultancy services received by the assessee, a hotel company from another hotel company i.e. Indian Hotels Company Ltd. being in the nature of advice, consultancy and assistance in respect of its management cannot be considered as Franchisee services and the assessee is entitled to avail 100% Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on such services and the same cannot be restricted to 20% in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue:
|
