TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/31/Appeals Thane/TH/2019-20/1235 dated 04.06.2019 of the Commissioner of GST Central Excise (Appeals), Thane, Mumbai. 2.1 Appellant operates as a global processing centre and provides offshore business support services to their principal (Hapag-Lloyd AG, Germany) through its office situated in India. They availed cenvat credit on services such as car hire charges, travels, event management, mandap keeper, security services, hotel banquets, photography, decoration and transportation charges. Revenue was of the opinion that these services against which the appellant has taken cenvat credit were having no nexus to the output services provided by them. Periodical show cause notices were issued to them from 2005 to 2014-15. These show cause notices were adjudicated and confirmed. For the subsequent period i.e. 2015 to June 2017 also, show cause notices were issued to the appellant to deny and recover inadmissible cenvat credit. 2.2 I am concerned in this appeal with the show cause notices issued for the period 2015 to June 2017 where a demand of Rs.10,54,954/- has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority in terms of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 73(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no CENVAT credit shall be taken unless all the particulars as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the case may be, are contained in the documents specified in sub-rule (1). Considering that the invoices presented before the adjudicating authority were not addressed to the registered business premises/ office premises of the appellants, the invoices cannot be said to be containing the prescribed particulars of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. I, therefore, find that in spite of defence put forth by the appellants, CENVAT credit is not allowable as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of CCR. In terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of CCR, the burden of proof regarding admissibility of CENVAT credit lies upon the appellants. There is not enough proof from the appellants which establishes that input service has been used by the appellants for providing output services. Here, it is pertinent to mention that as per Rule 3(1) of the CCR, CENVAT credit is allowed to be taken on 'input service' as defined under Rule 2(1) of the CCR, 2004 and as per main part of the definition, only when a service is used for providing an output service, it q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input service w.e.f. 1.4.2011(Rule 2(1)(C) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004). I also find that activities relating to business stands deleted from inclusive part of the definition of 'input service under Rute 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2011. Hence, activities relating to business are no more input services with effect from 1.4.2011. The burden of proof regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit shall lie upon the provider of output service in terms of Rule 9(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In absence of any further evidence in this regard and specific exclusion from the definition of input service w.e.f. 1.4.2011, I agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority in the respective impugned orders and reject the contentions of the appellants in respect of this service. Held Accordingly. 13. Accommodation (Hotel Stay) Charges: The appellants have stated in their submissions that the said expenses are in relation to hotel stay of employees/clients during business meetings visits etc. These activities are inevitable for operation of business. However, in the present case, appellant had merely submitted their written submissions w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Tubes Ltd. V Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida - [2013 (32) STR 123 (Tri. - Delhi) which I find is rightly applicable in the Appellant's case. (d) Security services: -that Appellant failed to provide the details of the place/location/site where the Security services were provided; that there was no nexus in the services received by the Appellant with the output services rendered by the Appellant. It is the contention of the Appellant that these services are availed by the Appellant at its offices both in Mumbai and Chennal and was to guard its office premises; that the invoices specifically mention the name of the Appellant as the service recipient and hence cannot be said that these services have not been used to guard the premises of the Appellant; that the invoices have been issued in the Appellant's name; that the invoices are paid for by the Appellant as evidenced by bank statements and the expenses incurred in relation to these services are accounted for in the Appellant's books of accounts and the Profit and Loss account which amply prove that these services is for securing official premises of the Appellant. Reliance was interalia among va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
