Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Exl Service.Com (I) Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E.&S.T., Ltu, Delhi on 3 December, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 02.12.2013
Date of Decision 03.12.2013
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mr. 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?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No.ST/58325/2013-[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.28/APPL/LTU-2013, dated 30.03.2013 passed by the C.C.E.&S.T.(Appeals), New Delhi]
M/s. EXL Service.Com (I) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E.&S.T., LTU, Delhi Respondent
Appearance Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate - for the appellant Shri R. Puri, Advocate - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No.58446, dated 03.12.2013 Per Honble Mr. Sahab Singh :
This appeal has been filed by M/s. EXL Services.com (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellant) against the Order-in-Appeal No.28/Appl/LTU-2013, dated 30.03.2013. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim on 30.06.2011 for Rs.30,69,909/- under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006 (EX(NT), dated 14.03.2006, but the original authority sanctioned the amount of Rs.18,85,360/- and rejected the amount of Rs.11,84,549/-. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the rejection of claim amounting to Rs.10,40,878/- only. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has partly granted relief to the appellant and rejected their appeal in respect of rest of the refund amount. Present appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned order.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of Invoice No.31 has denied the credit amounting to Rs.3,605/- on the ground that this invoice is for the purchase of monitor and therefore irrespective of the fact that whether this monitor was under warranty or not, the credit is not admissible to the appellant as this was for purchase of equipment and not for services received. Therefore, the credit of tax in respect of this invoice has rightly been disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as this was in respect of purchasing an equipment and does not pertain to the services provided. I do not find any infirmity in this finding of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. The major part of the CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.8,26,947/- has been denied to the appellant as the corresponding invoices were in the name of M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the service recipient of rent-a-cab service was M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. and not the appellant. The appellant has submitted that the copy of the invoice No.825/TSA/07, dated 10.08.2010 raised by M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant showing the particulars re-imbursement of the costs as per schedule enclosed. In the present case, the appellant is receiving the services from M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the said company has received the service of rent-a-cab/car rental services and the service tax on these services were provided the service provided. These services were utilised by M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. and not by the appellant. The fact that these expenses are re-imbursed by the appellant to M/s. American Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. does not make them eligible to CENVAT credit in respect of these services. Accordingly, I uphold this finding of Commissioner (Appeals) also.
5. The CENVAT credit of security services provided at the Guest House of the appellant located at places other than the registered premises has also denied to the appellant. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while denying the credit in respect of the security services provided at places other than registered premises has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the cases of C.C.E., Trichy Vs. Grasim Inds. reported in 2011 TIOL 172 CESTAT MAD and in the case of Hindustan Zinc Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-II reported in 2011 (270) E.L.T. (Tri.-Del.) and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Manikgarh Cement Vs. C.C.E., reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 456 (Bom.HC). In view of the decisions of the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai, there is no reason to find fault in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in denying the credit in respect of security services.
6. Another issue of denial of CENVAT credit is on invoices under Facilities Management services issued by M/s. C.B. Richards Ellis. The original authority has denied the credit on these invoices as the nature of the services are not clear. The invoices in question referred to the words Real Estate Agents along with their service tax registration number. The Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the service agreement came to the conclusion that the service agreement nowhere mentions the Real Estate Agents service, whereas the invoices in question referred to Real Estate Agents service. These invoices cannot be connected to the service agreement. In the absence of which, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the CENVAT credit to the appellant.
7. The CENVAT credit as also denied on services on movers and packers in relation to Guest House and moving of guard hut and it is the contention of the appellant that these invoices were for services provided for shifting of goods from guest house of the appellant to their business premises. Commissioner (Appeals) did not treat these services as input services in the absence of any evidence to the fact that shifting of goods from the guest house or guard hut from one premises to another was in any way related to rendering of the output services. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in denying the CENVAT credit to the appellant.
8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and accordingly, reject the same.
Pronounced on 03.12.2013 (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) SSK -2-