Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Hcl Technologies Ltd on 28 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
ST Appeal Nos. 57733 & 57738 of 2013 ST[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 329/ST/Appl/NOIDA /2012 dated 29.9.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, MOIDA]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
Commissioner of Central Excise, Appellants
NOIDA
Vs.
M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. Respondent
AND M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. Appellants Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent, NOIDA Appearance:
Shri B L Narasimhan, Advocate for the Appellants-assessee Ms. S Sharma, DR for the Respondent Revenue Date of Hearing /decision: 28.1.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ A 50475-50476 /2014-ST(SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
Both the appeals one filed by the assessee and other filed by the Revenue are disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the Cenvat credit in respect of certain services and has disallowed in respect of certain services.
2. Taking up the assessees appeal, I find that the disputed services are as under:
Medical Group insurance Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. vs. CCE [2010 (19) STR 93 (Tri-Bang)] Consultancy services CCE Hyderabad vs. Deloitte Tax Services India P Ltd. [2008-TIOL-629-CESTAT-Bang] Outdoor catering services CCE, Ahmd vs. Ferromatic Milacron India Ltd. [2011 (21)STR 8 (Guj)] CCE Bangalore vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. [2012 (25) STR 428 (Kar)] CCE Bangalore vs. Millipore India P Ltd. [2012 (26) STR 514 (Kar)] Subscription for international taxation CCE Visakhapatnam v Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. [2011 (22) STR 126(Tri-Bang)] M/s Kijiji (India) P Ltd. vs. CCE Mumbai I 2012-TIOL-1854-CESTAT-Mum] CCE Hyderabad vs Deloitte Tax Services India P Ltd. 2008-TIOL-CESTAT-Bang]
3. As regards the first services i.e. advertisement and sponsorship services, the lower authorities have observed that appellant has advertised themselves as HCL, which is reflective of entire HCL Group. As such, the Revenue contended that this is an advertisement for the entire group of HCL and benefit of Cenvat credit can not be extended to the assessee, who is an exporter of software.
The appellants submitted that it is they who have advertised their services and it is they who have paid the entire service tax. As such, there is no dispute about the payment of service tax by the appellant in which case, the advertisement services availed by them have to be held as availed by the appellant himself.
4. I find force in the above contention of the learned advocate. When the service tax for the services along with the consideration of such services stand paid by the assessee, it has to be held that advertisement services have been availed by the assessee, in relation to his business activities in which case Cenvat credit would be available. Apart from that I find force in the assessees contention that there was no such allegation in the show cause notice and as such, impugned order have traveled beyond the show cause notice.
5. Though I find that all the services in dispute stand covered by various decisions of the Tribunal, as is clear from the above chart, presented by the learned advocate, but as the learned DR submits that there is some dispute about the production of documentary evidence, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of declaration of law by various Courts, as reflected in the above chart. The said exercise would be done by the original adjudicating authority as soon as possible.
6. As regards the second appeal, I find that services on which the credit has been allowed are medical group insurance, legal consultancy services, outdoor catering services and subscription for international taxation. All the said services stand covered by decisions of the Courts including various High Courts and as such, no infirmity is found in the view of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the Revenues appeal is rejected.
7. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2