Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s HCL Comnet Systems And Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Noida

Rejection of refund claim - Claim for refund of service tax of renting of immovable properties taken on sub-lease - Held that:- It is axiomatic and this position follows from Explanation (c) of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, that M/s HCL Technologies Limited would be liable to remit service tax on the mere recording of a debit or credit notes in respect of a transaction with an associated enterprise, such as the appellant. As a corollary thereof, the payment of rent including the service t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a suspicion however grave cannot be a foundation for a logical conclusion of fact, is well settled.

Board Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010, vide paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.3 clearly enjoins that there is no requirement of a precise or a one-to-one correlation between an input service leading to an output service. The decisions of this Tribunal in Commr. of C. Ex. Vadodara vs. Transatlantic Packaging Pvt Ltd. [2011 (11) TMI 226 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] ; Capiq Engineering Pvt. Ltd. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sub-lease deed of the appellant, the preponderance of probabilities legitimises the conclusion that renting of immovable property was the input service utilised for the exported output service provided by the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 51621/2014-SM - Final Order No. A/51433/2015-SM(BR) - Dated:- 8-4-2015 - G Raghuram, President,J. For the Petitioner : Shri Manish Gaur, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms Ranjana Jha, Jt CDR ORDER Per: G Raghuram: The appeal is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x of ₹ 21,42,757/-, paid by the appellant on immovable property taken on rent from its holding company M/s HCL Technologies Limited. A appeal was preferred against the adjudication order dated 30.04.2013 which rejected the claim for refund of service tax liability incurred in respect of renting of immovable properties; and two other elements, which were however allowed by the appellate Commissioner. 2. On 12.12.2012, appellant filed a refund claim, inter alia for refund of ₹ 21,42,75 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

equer; that one of the premises Arihant Building is not the registered premises in specified Form ST-2 which also does not contain the name of the building; and that the debit note is issued in the name of Arihant building" while refund is claimed for service tax on inputs while the export is made much later i.e. during January 2012 to March 2012, in respect of rent pertaining to a much earlier period i.e. July 2008 to June 2010. 3. On appeal, the ld. appellate Commissioner reversed the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat since the rent pertains to the period July 2008 to June 2010 and service tax and the rent was remitted qua a debit note entry (on 29.02.2012), the transaction between M/s HCL Technologies Limited and the appellant cannot be said to be an arm's length transaction since the lessor accepted payment of rent after two to three years. Therefore, the appellate Commissioner reasoned, debit notes are inadmissible and the claim should be supported by the other documents. The appellate Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y of the lease deed executed on 12.12.2011 which does not pertain to the lease period from July 2008 to June 2010 for which the rent was remitted by way of a debit note of M/s HCL Technologies Limited and therefore the appellate Commissioner agrees with the finding of the adjudicating authority that the premises was not the registered premises. 6. The third reason adduced by the appellate Commissioner for rejecting the refund is that though the only requirement for claiming refund under Cenvat C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es has no nexus with the output service exported during January 2012 to March 2012. 7. In our considered view the three reasons recorded by the appellate Commissioner for rejecting the claim for refund are unsustainable. On 23.02.2007, a lease deed was entered into between the owner of Sterling Tower, 327 Anna Salai, Chennai and M/s HCL Technologies Limited as the "lessee", an expression deemed to include its successor and assigns. By a debit note in 2012 M/s HCL Technologies Limited e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urpose of its normal and usual business under any of its subsidiary company/sister company as well; and that the appellant - M/s HCL Comnet Systems and Services Limited is a subsidiary company of M/s HCL Technologies Limited. The debit notes by M/s HCL Technologies Limited, copies of which are filed in the appeal also record debit entries in respect of rent for the premises as well as service tax and the cess thereon, evidencing that the appellant had been a lessee of the premises during the per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e debit note constitutes proof of the appellant having incurred in service tax liability in respect of the lease of immovable property from M/s HCL Technologies Limited as a sub-lessee. The burden therefore shifts to the Revenue to establish that the debit note recorded by M/s HCL Technologies Limited is a fraudulent instrument not reflecting the true transaction between the parties. A mere suspicion, has been as recorded by the primary and appellate authority, that appellant had paid the rent t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hennai. M/s HCL Comnet Systems & Services Limited is the name of the appellant and therefore it could not have been the name of the premises, clearly a typographical error. While this is so, an analyses of the debit note, the lease deed between the owner of the premises and M/s HCL Technologies Limited, dated 23.02.2007 and the sub lease deed between M/s HCL Technologies Limited and the appellant, dated 12.03.2011, leads to the singular inference that the appellant had taken the premises kno .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version