Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Principal Commissioner Of Service Tax , ... vs Maa Communications Bozel Ltd on 10 January, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/20424/2017-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 1669/2016 dated 28/11/2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Service Tax (Appeals)] Principal Commissioner of Service Tax , Bangalore Service Tax-II 4th Floor, T.T.M.C.-B.M.T.C. Bus Stand Building, Old Airport Road Bangalore - 560 071 Appellant(s) Versus MAA Communications Bozel Ltd. No. 6, Service Road, Domlur Layout Bangalore 560 071 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Pakshirajan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant Shri N. Anand, Advocate For the Respondent # 152, Race Course Road, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Date of Hearing: 10/01/2018 Date of Decision: 10/01/2018 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20032 / 2018 Per : S.S GARG The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the cenvat credit on various input services viz. Club Services, Tours and Travel Services, Sodexho passes, Rent-a-Cab Service and Credit Card Services by holding the same as input service. Briefly the facts of the present case are that based on audit conducted by the Department it was observed that the appellant has availed input service credit to the tune of Rs. 22,48,620/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty only) on Club Services, Tours and Travel Services, Sodexho Passes, Rent-a-Cab Service and Credit Card Services which were held to be ineligible as these services do not meet the criteria of input services as defined under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, it was observed that the appellant had availed input service credit to the tune of Rs. 23,83,988/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight only) against invoices which were issued to M/s. Turn on, which the Department alleges is irregular. In addition to the above, the Department has demanded service tax under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Services rendered by appellant and the demand has been confirmed to the extent of Rs. 3,31,084/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty One Thousand and Eighty Four only). There is another issue of short payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 13,174/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Four only) for the period August 2010, February 2011 and March 2011, which has also been confirmed. Interest has also been demanded and penalties imposed on the appellant under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the original order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue has filed the present appeal alleging that the cenvat credit has wrongly been allowed on input services as the same does not fall in the definition of input service as prescribed under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
3. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law to the extent of allowing cenvat credit on input services viz. Club Services, Tour and Travel Services, Sodexho passes, Rent-a-Cab Service and Credit Card Services. He further submitted that these services are not directly related to the output service rendered by the assessee and therefore, they do not fall in the definition of input service.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all these services have been used for the purpose of rendering output service. He has submitted that Club Services were used for sales promotion and to develop their business. Secondly the Tours and Travel services, the expenses were incurred by the assessee for travel of senior executive of the company for business purposes. Cabs are hired for pick up and drop of employees and for client meetings. Further the input service on Credit Card are used by the assessee for booking travel tickets, to buy online image which are used for advertising purpose and Sodexho pass these coupons are issued to the employees to avail food and eatables by redeeming the same at specified outlets. He further submitted that these services have been held to be input service by various decisions of this Tribunal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:
a) Reliance Industries Ltd. V. CCE - 2016 (49) STR 383 (Tri.-Mum.)
b) ARM Embedded Tech Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE - 2016 (45) STR 133 (Tri.-Bang.)
c) Pam Pharma & Allied Machinery Co. P Ltd. V. CCE - 2016 (42) STR 757 (Tri.-Mum.)
d) Racold Thermo Ltd. V. CCE 2016 (42) S.T.R. 332 (Tri.-Mum.)
e) ITC Ltd. V. CCE 2017-TIOL-1894-CESTAT-BANG.
f) CST V Yodlee Infotech Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 695 (Tri.-Bang.)
g) CST V. WNS Global Services 2016 (44) STR 454 (Tri.-Mum.)
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the decisions relied upon by the respondent cited supra, I find that all these services on which cenvat credit has been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) fall in the definition of input service as held by various Benches of the Tribunal cited supra. Therefore, by following the ratios of the said decisions, I hold that the cenvat credit has rightly been allowed and there is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 10/01/2018) (S.S GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss...