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 Technologies Ltd Versus C.C.E. Noida

2015 (8) TMI 595 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Cenvat Credit - various input services - nexus with output - Refund claim of unutilized Cenvat credit - Rule 5 - Export of services - Held that:- service of renting Car parking space used for parking of the vehicles of the Officers/Employees of the assessees Company has nexus with the business of the assessee - Credit allowed.

Hotel bills for stay of auditor when he visited Chennai for audit of the appellants Company - Held that:- Auditing is an essential activity for the Company. 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

ervice - Held that:- In a catena of decisions it has been laid that any service in relation to the business of providing the output service would get covered. - credit allowed.

Advertisement and Sponsorship Service - Department contends that the appellants being a software company engaged in export, these input services pertains to brand HCL which is widely known for hardware and therefore the appellants are not entitled to credit. - Held that:- appellant has nowhere stated in the rep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

These services do not qualify to be input service to avail credit - credit denied.

Rent-a-Cab Service - Held that:- According to appellants the service is used to pick up and drop the employees on daily basis so that they reach on time and these facilitate the output services. It has been settled in a series of judgments that Rent-a-cab service qualifies as input service for the relevant period. - credit allowed.

Accommodations Services for stay of employees - Held that:- 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

r: Sulekha Beevi C.S. 1.1 The appeal is filed challenging the denial of Cenvat Credit. 1.2 The appellants are engaged in providing taxable service of Information Technology Service, Maintenance & Repair Service, Technical testing & Analysis Service and Business Support Service. They are also making export of services. The appellants are availing facility of Cenvat Credit. For the period October 2011 to December 2011 they filed refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 rea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d order is as under:- Sl.No. Input Service Amount in Rs. Reasons for denying the credit/refund 1. Car Parking Service 37427/- No nexus between input service and output service provided. 2. Room Service Charges 1442/- It is for stay of an individual and has nothing to do with the export of service. 3. Dry Cleaning Charges 28292/- It is not essential for the export of service. 4. Renting of equipments for organizing events 695878/- + 11011/- No nexus between the input service and output service pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with provision of the output service. 10. Rent-a-cab service 22,751/- Service has been used prior to the relevant period (refund claim for the period Oct. 2011 to Dec. 2011). 11. Charges for accommodation 63,345/- Service have been availed to provide onsite support and software implementation to the domestic customers and not overseas customers. Total 28,33,287/- 2. The claim of refund for Car parking Services was denied, referring to Notification No. 5/2006-CE(N.T.) and held that there is no s .....

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 has nexus with the business of the assessee and has to be treated as an activity related to business. Applying the ratio laid in the above judgments I find that appellants are entitled to credit of ₹ 37,427/- towards car parking service. 3. The appellant has claimed credit/refund of Room Service Charges of ₹ 1,442/-. The payment, according to appellant, is made towards hotel bills for stay of auditor when he visited Chennai for audit of the appellants Company. The inclusive part of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the credit of ₹ 1,442/- towards Room Service charges for auditing. 4. An amount of ₹ 28,292/- has been disallowed towards the services of cleaning. As per the documents the services were dry cleaning of carpet, cleaning of chairs and glass etc. In the cases of paper products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III 2013 (30) STR 310 (Tri.-Mum.) it has been held that cleaning services has nexus with business activity of manufacture when cleaning service are undertaken in the premises of the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is submitted that such events were for promoting sales, for staff development and augmenting the business of the company. Appellants relied on the judgments in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Ltd. Vs. CCE., LTU. Bangalore 2011 (24) STR 645 (Kar.) and Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE., Aurangabad 2012 (32) STR 95 (Tri.-Mum.) in which cases the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The learned DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that there 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

rvice) is eligible for credit as I find that these services qualify as input services. 6. The charges of ₹ 361/- towards Vat Registration was denied as the documents were defective. It is the case of Department though appellants contend that the charge, incurred for getting additional place being registered, the same is not ascertainable from the document. As the document is defective and appellants have not furnished any further evidence on this regard, I uphold the finding of the Commiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itled to credit. The Original Adjudicating Authority has taken this view which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Original Adjudicating Authority for that matter has placed reliance on the reply filed by the appellants. In Para 6.14 of the Order-in-Original it is seen stated that from the reply submitted it is clearly evident that the above services are for promotion of their Brand, and brand HCL also includes hardware for which brand HCL is well known. The Counsel for appellant submi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the benefit of advertisement services must be confined to HCL hardware alone, as the brand HCL is more popular for its hardware, and the appellants being a company engaged in software, is not entitled to the credit. Further the observation of the adjudicating authority that it is reflected from the written reply submitted by appellants is factually wrong. For these reasons I am of the view that appellants are entitled to the refund/credit of ₹ 18,49,953/- towards Advertisement and Spons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of pocket expenses and the services exported to avail the benefit of Cenvat Credit. In this aspect I agree with the Departmental Representative. The words out of pocket expenses is too wide and lacks definiteness as to the kind of service which would qualify to be an input service. Therefore I concur with the opinion of the authorities below and deny the credit on service tax paid on these. 9. An amount of ₹ 26,050/- has been claimed by appellant towards Visa and Immigration Services. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ghtly rejected the same. 10. In a series of judgments the Tribunal has held Garden Maintenance Services qualify as input services. Therefore the observation of the authorities below that it has no nexus with the output service is untenable. The same is therefore allowed. 11. Appellant claim Credit of ₹ 22,751/- towards Rent-a-Cab Service. It was pointed out that these services were received between December 2010 to March 2011, where as the refund claim is for the period October 2011 to Dec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hey reach on time and these facilitate the output services. It has been settled in a series of judgments that Rent-a-cab service qualifies as input service for the relevant period. For this reasons I allow the credit on Rent-a-Cab Service of ₹ 37,427/-. 12. The appellants contend that they are entitled to refund of ₹ 63,345/- being Accommodations Services. On behalf of appellants it is submitted that the employees of the appellant travel to different places within the country or outs .....

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
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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