TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - disputed issue pertains to interpretation of law. HELD THAT:- In the present case the cenvat credit was denied in respect of service received by the appellant from M/s. Indian Hotels Co.Ltd. on the pretext that the same is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service which is not specified under Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The contention of the appellant is that the service provider M/s. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. has provided the services under the head of Management or Business Consultancy Services, accordingly, the classification of service cannot be challenged at the service recipient end. Moreover, the classification of same service was challenged by the department and proceedings were initiated against M/s. Indian Hote ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invocable in the absence of any suppression of fact, willful mis-statement etc. any, in any case, when the disputed issue pertains to interpretation of law (Appeal No. ST/10877/2013) 02. Shri T.C. Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the service provider M/s. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. has provided service under the head of Management or Business Consultancy Services which is specified under Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 therefore, the appellant is entitled for 100% credit on such input service irrespective of whether the same was used in exempted as well as taxable service. He further submits that the issue of classification cannot be raised at the service recipient end. Moreover, in case of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lassifiable under Business Auxiliary Service which is not specified under Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The contention of the appellant is that the service provider M/s. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. has provided the services under the head of Management or Business Consultancy Services, accordingly, the classification of service cannot be challenged at the service recipient end. Moreover, the classification of same service was challenged by the department and proceedings were initiated against M/s. Indian Hotel Co. Ltd., the matter was decided by this tribunal in PIEM HOTELS LTD. case (supra). The tribunal has passed the following order:- 6 . We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records and find that the natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect the credit taken by Piem during the period prior thereto. Therefore, the jurisdictional authorities at Piem Hotels have committed an apparent error in denying the credit and it is a well settled position of law that jurisdictional officers at recipient s end are not empowered to question or change the classification or valuation at supplier s end based on various judgments of Hon ble Apex Court. Since we are allowing the appeals mainly on the ground that the services provided by IHCL is correctly and appropriately classifiable under Management Business Consultant s Services and not under Business Auxiliary Service and the jurisdictional officers at recipient s unit are not empowered to review or revise the classification at supplier/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
