Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Geojit Financial Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 15 November, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/21396/2017-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. COC-EXCUS-000-APP-143-2017 dated 31/05/2017 passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, COCHIN( Appeal) ] M/s. Geojit Financial Services Ltd (Formerly Known As Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd) 34/659 Civil Line Road Padivattom KOCHI - 682024 KERALA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Cochin-CCE C R BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, - 682018 KERALA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. JOSE JACOB, Advocate #41/3787, 1ST FLOOR, CARMEL CENTRE, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI - 682018 KERALA For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 15/11/2017 Date of Decision: 15/11/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22797 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a service provider under the category of stock broker services, banking and other financial service, business support service and business auxiliary services. They have been taking CENVAT credit for payment of service tax and on irregular CENVAT credit availment, a demand of Rs.2,26,662/- was issued to recover the same. The lower authority confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs.1,77,877/- and imposed penalty of Rs.2,000/- under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rs.1,77,877/- under Rule 15(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the order of the original authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the appeal; hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the factual and the legal position. He further submitted that the services alleged to be ineligible are services used for the purpose of business. He also submitted that on the Annual Day Celebration, clients, business associates and employees participated and that Mandap Keeper service are not listed in the services mentioned in the exclusive clause of the definition of input service of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011 (24) STR 645 (Kar.). Besides this, the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions:
* CCE vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 (52) STR 497 (Tri.-All.) * BNY Mellon International Operations (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (47) STR 290 (Tri.-Mum.) * BNY Mellon International Operations (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (30) STR 567 (Tri.-Mum.) 4.1 He further submitted that an amount of Rs.279/- with regard to the sodex coupon, the learned counsel did not press for the same. 4.2 He further submitted that the appellants are not liable to pay interest and penalty because this particular service falls in the definition of input service as submitted above.
5. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
6. By following the ratios of the decisions cited supra, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 15/11/2017) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv...
4