Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cst, Delhi-Iv, Gurgaon vs M/S Ernst & Young Associates Llp on 21 June, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 SINGLE BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. ST/60330/2017 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 159/ST/APPEAL-II/MK/GGN/2016-17 dated 30.09.2016 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Gurgaon] Date of Hearing/Decision: 21.06.2017 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) CST, Delhi-IV, Gurgaon Appellant Vs. M/s Ernst & Young Associates LLP Respondent
________________________________________________ Appearance Shri. Satyapal, AR- for the appellant Shri. Tushar Gupta, Advocate- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61188 / 2017 Per Ashok Jindal:
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is an exporter of services and to export the services, the respondent availed services of Rent a Cab, Asset Insurance, Health Insurance and Professional Indemnity Insurance as input service availed cenvat credit thereon. The Revenue is of the view that these impugned services are not input services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, they are not entitled to avail cenvat credit on these services, as they are not related to their business of export of services. The various show cause notices were issued to the respondent and the same were adjudicated by the adjudicating authority, confirming the demand on account of denial of cenvat credit on the services in question along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who relied on the various judicial pronouncement on the issue and allowed the cenvat to the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before me.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the records and grounds of the appeal, I find that despite the litigation policy issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, i.e. wherein the amount involved is less than Rs. 10 Lac and the issue is not of classification/refund, no appeal is to be preferred before this Tribunal. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the issue of classification/refund is not involved and amount is less than Rs. 10 lacs, despite that the Revenue has filed this appeal only to burden this Tribunal with the frivolous appeal and is against the litigation policy.
5. On merit, I find that the services of Rent a Cab, Asset Insurance, Health Insurance and Professional Indemnity Insurance were received by the respondent in their business of export of service for the period 2006 to 2011. During the relevant time, the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) has held that any services availed by the assessee who is provider of output service is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the services used for their business of providing output service. Further, as per CBEC Circular No. 943/04/2011-CE dated 29.04.2011, which has been clarified that the services availed prior to 01.04.2011, cenvat credit is available to the assessee. Therefore, on merit, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly allowed the cenvat credit to the respondent.
In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed by upholding the impugned order.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 3 ST/60330/2017 CST, Delhi-IV Vs. M/s Ernst & Young Associates LLP