Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, Ce & St, Noida vs M/S Hcl Technologies Ltd on 2 December, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 2.12.2013
Service Tax Appeal No. 56711 of 2013-ST(SM)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 331/ST/Appl/Noida/2012 dated 29.9.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida)
For Approval & signature:
Honble Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
CC, CE & ST, Noida Appellant
Vs.
M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri U.K. Srivastava, A.R. - for the appellant Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Advocate - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No.58434/2013 Per Sahab Singh :
This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 331/ST/Appl/Noida/2012 dated 29.9.2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondents) filed a refund claim of Rs.53,73,657/- under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006 for claiming refund of Cenvat credit lying unutilized in their books. The original authority has allowed the refund amounting to Rs.42,50,293/- and disallowed the refund amounting to Rs.9,50,048/- which was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order partly allowed their appeal. The Revenue has challenged the impugned order-in-appeal in the present appeal.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Revenue has challenged the credit/refund to the party amounting to Rs.1,53,120/- in respect of carpenter/wood work/plumbing work/floor tile work falling under the category of management, maintenance or repair services. The credit in respect of these activities was disallowed by the original authority on the ground that the said services have no nexus with the output services. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that these services are admissible if performed in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory or premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises. Under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules modernisation/renovation and the repair of the factory is covered for the purpose of Cenvat credit. I therefore do not find any infirmity in these findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to allowing the credit in respect of these activities.
5. Revenue has challenged allowing of credit amounting to Rs.6,180/- in respect of labour law compliance services falling under legal consultancy service inasmuch as the compliance of labour laws is nothing to do with the provision of output services. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that labour law compliance is an essential part of any business and non observance of labour laws or its procedure may hamper normal working of the business. I agree with the observations and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to compliance services of the labour laws inasmuch as the legal consultancy service are essential in nature for the purpose of complying the labour laws and have a connection with the business activity of the respondents.
6. Revenue has also challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to credit amounting to Rs.3,14,287/- on the invoices which did not contain the PAN based registration number.
7. On going through Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, I find that this rule does not stipulate mentioning of PAN based registration number and in absence of any other deficiency in the invoices in question, there is no fault in the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the credit in respect of this amount also.
8. Revenue has further challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of invoices pertaining to respondents SEZ units located in Chennai under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue contentions is that the respondents are supposed to pay service tax on the taxable services used outside SEZ and then claim refund of the same subject to conditions of the Notification. I find the issue has attained finality in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (29) STR 393 (Tri.-Mad.) in which it was held that even if appellant was not eligible for refund under Notification No. 9/2009 dated 3.3.2009, the appellants were certainly eligible for refund under Section 11B of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order-in-appeal and accordingly I uphold the order-in-appeal and reject the Revenues appeal.
(Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1