Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd vs Cce, Noida on 21 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 21.6.2013
Service Tax Appeal No. 4033 of 2012-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 237/ST/APPL/NOIDA/12 dated 30.7.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, 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?
M/s HCL Comnet System & Services Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Noida Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate - for the appellant
Shri S. Bector, D.R. - for the respondent
CORAM: Honble Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 56780/2013 dated 21.6.2013
Per Sahab Singh :
This appeal is filed by M/s HCL Comnet System and Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellant) against Order-in-Appeal No. 237/Appl/Noida/12 dated 30.7.2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in providing Information Technology Service to their overseas clients. They are availing Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services. Appellants filed a refund claim of Rs.3,48,47,415/- on 30.9.2011 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for the period October 2010 to December 2010. A Show Cause Notice dated 16.1.2012 was issued to the appellant for rejecting part of their claim. Case was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who allowed the claim of Rs.3,44,79,515/- and rejected the rest of the claim. Adjudicating authority has rejected the claim on services mentioned below :-=
(i) Gardening within office premises. - ( Rs.911)
(ii) Pest Management Services. - (Rs.2,536/-)
(iii) Professional Charges. - (Rs.3,78,525/-)
(iv) Video Tape Production. - (Rs.1,030/-)
(v) Logistic Service - (Rs.16,962/-) Appellants filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order rejected their appeal.
3. Heard both sides.
4. I find that out of five services on which refund has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals), major amount of Rs.3,78,525/- pertains to service tax paid on Professional Charges. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 4.7 of order has held that consultants provided the services in order to file return in foreign countries for the income earned and this service has no nexus with the output service. As rightly pointed out by ld. Advocate of appellant same Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 173/2012 dated 27.6.2012 has allowed the Cenvat credit on Professional Charges as per finding in para 4.9 and 4.10 in the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.6.2012 . I find the Commissioner (Appeals) is not consistent in deciding the issue of eligibility of credit/refund in respect of Professional Charges and matter needs to be remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals).
5. As regards, other services like Gardening Services, Pest Control, Video Tape and Logistic services, appellants have submitted various case laws in support of their claim for refund of service tax on these services. Since matter is being remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) should consider these case laws to be submitted before him by the appellants and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
(Pronounced in Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1