Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce & St, Noida vs M/S Hcl Technologies Ltd on 11 September, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Old Red Building, 38 M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211 001 COURT NO. II DATE OF HEARING/DECISION : 11/09/2017. Service Tax Appeal No. 70763 of 2016 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/SVTAX/000/APPL-I/583/2015-16 dated 18/03/2016 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise (Appeals I), Meerut.] CCE & ST, Noida Appellant Versus M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri Gyanendra Tripathi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Appellant.
Shri Utkarsh Malviya, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. _71031/2017 Dated : 11/09/2017 Per. Ashok Jindal :-
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim filed by the respondent under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Notification No. 27/2012- CE (NT) dated 18/06/2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed refund claim as stated hereinabove the same was sought to be rejected on the ground that the services for which the respondent has claimed the refund claim are not input services as per Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim holding that the services in question are not input service but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the usage by the respondent allowed the refund claim. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before me on the premise that the services in question do not qualify as input service in terms of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as these services have not direct or indirect relation with their manufacturing activity. The services are namely (a) pantry boy/ manpower supply service (b) car parking and canteen service (c) event management service (d) housekeeping/cleaning service (e) garden maintenance (f) invoice raised to SEZ unit (g) charges for video creation (h) charges for travel cost free.
3. Heard the parties considered the submissions.
4. It is an admitted fact that at the time of availment of services in question, the same has not been disputed by the Revenue that these services are not input service, therefore, the respondent is entitled to avail Cenvat credit under Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue has been raised at the time of filing refund claim. As availment of Cenvat credit has not been challenged by the Revenue, in that circumstances, at this stage, the refund claim cannot be challenge merely on the ground the services, in question, are not input services.
5. In that circumstances, the show cause notice issued to the respondent to deny refund claim is against the mandate of law. Therefore the impugned order is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) PK 3 ST/70763 of 2016