Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Capgemini Technology Services India ... vs Mumbai East on 30 May, 2019
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 02
Service Tax Appeal No. 87494 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NVK/41/RGD/2018 dated 14.03.2018
passed by Commissioner of Central GST, Raigad)
M/s Capgemini Technology .....Appellant
services India Ltd.
1,4,5,6,7 Floors, and basement Akruti
Softech Park, MIDC Cross Road No. 21,
Andheri (East) Mumbai-400093
VERSUS
Commissioner of C.G.ST-Mumbai .....Respondent
East 9th Floor, Lotus Info center, Near Parel Station, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Appearance:
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sudir B. Mane, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO. A/85977 / 2019 Date of Hearing: 15.01.2019 Date of Decision: 30.05.2019 Per: S.K. MOHANTY This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST, Raigad.
2. The appellant herein, is engaged in the business of providing Information Technology Software Services, defined under the Finance Act, 1994. During the disputed period 2013- 15 and 2014-15, the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit in respect of service tax paid on various taxable services used/utilized for providing the output service. The authorities below have denied the Cenvat benefit in respect of service tax paid on the taxable services namely, Event Management and 2 Appeal No. ST/87494/2018 Mandap Keeper Service, General Insurance and Insurance Auxiliary Service, Catering Service and GTA Service on the ground that those services have no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant.
3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not contesting disallowance of Cenvat Credit with respect to catering service, due to low financial implication. However, he submitted that since the credit availed on such service had not been utilized by the appellant, interest and penalty imposed by the authorities below should be set aside. With regard to the other services listed above, he submitted that those services were in fact used for providing the output service and accordingly, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services. In this context, he has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ST, Mumbai II - 2015 (40) STR 719 (Tri.-Mumbai), Oceans Connect India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex, Pune III - 2016 (46) STR 858 (Tri.-Mumbai), Anjani Portland Cements Ltd. Vs. CC, C.Ex. ST, Hyderabad - 2017 (47) STR 326 (Tri.-Hyd.) and LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & ST., Noida - 2016 (44) STR 97 (Tri.).
4. Per contra, the Learned AR appearing for the respondent has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The term "input service" defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 takes within its ambit the services used by the provider of output service for providing such output service. It is an admitted position that the appellant is a provider of defined output service under the Finance Act, 1994. On perusal of records, I find that the disputed service in question were used/utilized by the appellant in, or in relation to providing 3 Appeal No. ST/87494/2018 the output service. Thus, the case of the appellant squarely falls under the definition of input service for the purpose of availment of Cenvat Credit. Further, I also find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has allowed the Cenvat benefit on the disputed services. However, considering the fact that the appellant is not contesting disallowance of Cenvat Credit on catering service, I am of the view that the impugned order should sustain on the ground of denial of Cenvat benefit on such service. Since, it is not specifically alleged that the credit taken has been utilized by the appellant for payment of service tax on the output service and that substantial turnover of the appellant is in context with export of service, which is not liable to service tax, I am of the view that interest and penalty confirmed against the appellant cannot be sustained.
7. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside, to the extent it has confirmed the Cenvat demand on the taxable services namely, Event Management & Mandap Keeper Service, General Insurance & Insurance Auxiliary Service and GTA Service and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. The impugned order sustains, so far as it denied the Cenvat Credit on catering service. However, interest and penalty confirmed on such service is set aside.
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in favour of the appellant.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 30/05/2019) (S.K.Mohanty) Member (Judicial) HK