TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses - Other rental charges - Electrician and Plumber - Tour Operator Service - Pest Control Service - Car Parking Charges - AMC Charges - External Consultant. Gardening services - HELD THAT:- This issue was dealt with by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. MURUGAPPA MORGAN THERMAL CERAMICS LTD. VERSUS CCE AHMEDABAD [ 2013 (4) TMI 384 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein the Tribunal held that the appellant was required to maintain a garden which is an obligation under the relevant pollution control law and CENVAT Credit with respect to the services used for maintaining the garden would therefore be admissible - refund allowed. Housekeeping services - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III VERSUS HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. [ 2014 (5) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein the Bench has ruled in favour of the assessee - refund allowed. Transport charges - HELD THAT:- In COMMR. OF CUS. C. EX., HYDERABAD-III VERSUS GREY GOLD CEMENTS LTD. [ 2014 (9) TMI 673 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , the Hon ble High Court has held that the credit of input service tax on Transportation Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credit in ST-3 return was not legally sustainable - refund allowed. Appeal allowed in part. - Service Tax Appeal No. 41304 of 2017 with 41537-41541/2017 - FINAL ORDER NOs. 40085-40090 / 2020 - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - MR. C. J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. K. Sivarajan, Consultant for the Appellant Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER By these appeals, the assessee is challenging the partial denial of refund in respect of the input credit availed on various services. After hearing both sides and since common facts are involved and the issue in all these appeals relates to refund but for different periods, the same are taken up together for common disposal. 2. The issue vis- -vis the period of dispute are summarized in the form of a table, for convenience: Period covered Appeal No. Order-in-Original No. Order-in-Appeal No. Grounds of Rejection July 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective Orders-in-Original, substantial refund was granted, however, rejecting a part thereof for the reasons as indicated in column no. 5 of the above table; that the dates of the invoices cover periods both prior to 01.04.2011 and post 01.04.2011, etc. However, the first three appeals covering the periods from July 2010 to September 2010, October 2010 to December 2010 and January 2011 to March 2011 are clearly prior to the date of amendment. 5.1.1 Learned Consultant for the appellant submitted in respect of Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41537 to 41541 of 2017 that the First Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has directed some more refund, but however, he has upheld the denial in respect of impugned services for want of nexus thereby partly allowing the appeals. 5.1.2 Learned Consultant submitted at the outset that the denial of input credit on the ground of unregistered premises has been settled by the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the following cases: (i) The Commissioner of G.S.T. C.Ex., Chennai v. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 676 Madras High Court]; (ii) C.S.T.-III, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alia submitted that the non-disclosure was only a procedural lapse; that such credits had already been included in the Books of Account and in the appellant s CENVAT Credit Register and that the same was duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore East reported in 2019 (10) T.M.I. 1148 CESTAT Bangalore. 6. Per contra, Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and also the decisions relied upon during the course of arguments. 8.1 With regard to the issue of denial of input credit for want of registration, we find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, in the appellant s own case although for a different period, in Service Tax Appeal No. 40675 of 2016 (vide Final Order No. 41063 of 2018 dated 09.04.2018) and this Bench, after following the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian and Plumber) : The above services can be comfortably clubbed under Maintenance Charges and are covered by the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2014 (35) S.T.R. 552 (Tri. Bang.)]. Pest Control Service : The above service, according to us, is very much essential for maintaining a healthy atmosphere in the working premises/factory premises and hence, this would be an essential input service. We therefore find that there is direct nexus of this input service with the output service. Car parking Charges : The above service was held to be an eligible input service by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. PTC Softwares (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2014 (35) S.T.R. 632 (Tri. Mum.)] stating that car parking is part of the business premises of the appellant and is a business expenditure. AMC Charges : The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ADC India Communication Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2012 (12) T.M.I. 388 CESTAT Bangalore] has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) to be very much apt wherein, the co-ordinate Bangalore Bench has inter alia ruled that the denial of refund only on the basis of non-disclosure of CENVAT Credit in ST-3 return was not legally sustainable, in the following words: 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the only ground for which refund has been rejected is that the appellant has not disclosed the cenvat credit in ST-3 returns. Now the question arises can the non-disclosure or delay in disclosure in ST-3 returns, the assessee looses his right to claim cenvat credit or not? In the present case, I find that after going through the various conditions set out in the appendix to the Notification 5/2006 issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 4 and Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, I find that appellant has filed all the necessary documents for claiming the cenvat credit viz. invoices, books of accounts, cenvat credit register which are required as per the various Rules and the Notification to claim cenvat credit but inadvertently he has failed to disclose the same in the ST-3 return which is only a procedural infraction in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
