Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Mentor Graphics India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, C & St, Hyderabad-Ii on 4 November, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Bench SMB
Court I
Appeal No. ST/28169/2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 179/2012 ST(R) dt. 03.01.2013 passed by CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., 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?
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Mentor Graphics India Pvt. Ltd.,
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad-ii
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri. Vishal Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 04/11/2016 Date of decision: 04/11/2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim, filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.03.2016. The appellant is STPI Unit and registered with the Service Tax department. They filed refund claim for the period July 2011 to September 2011 for an amount of Rs. 19,14,037/-. The Original Authority sanctioned part of the refund and rejected refund of Rs. 6,73,971/-. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and vide the order impugned herein the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Shri. Vishal Kumar submitted that various input services under dispute in the present appeal are Courier Service, Chartered Accountant Service, Air travel agent Service, Management, Maintenance or Repair Service, Commercial Training or Coaching, Business Support Service, Management or Business Consulting Services, Business Auxiliary Service and Cleaning Services. He submitted that the authorities below have rejected the refund in respect of the above services on the ground that the said services do not have nexus with the output services. He also argued that the authorities below have erred in placing reliance upon the decision laid in M/s Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C) to reject the refund. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the various judgments as under to canvass the proposition that the said services qualify as input services:
Alliance Global Services IT India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST., Hyderabad- IV 2016 (44) S.T.R. 113 (Tri. Hyd.) Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Chattisgarh Vs. H.E.G. LTD. 2010 (260) E.L.T. 386 (Chattisgarh) Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore 2011 (21) S.T.R. 417 (Tri. Bang.) FAG Engineering (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o C.Ex., Vdodara 2011 (266) E.L.T. 193 (Tri. Ahmd.)
3. On behalf of the department, the Ld. AR Shri. Nagraj Naik reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the refund claim has been rejected for the reason that the input services cannot be considered to be directly essential for providing the output services.
4. I have heard the rival submissions. The appellant has explained the purpose for which the above services were used. Most of these services expressly fall within the definition of input service. The services under dispute, have been analyzed and found to be eligible for credit in the judgments relied by the counsel for appellant. Though the appellant had filed refund claim in respect of outdoor catering services, it is now the submission of the Ld. Counsel that they do not intend to proceed to claim credit in respect of outdoor catering service and that this claim is not pressed in this appeal. The Ld. Counsel has explained that Courier Services was availed for the purpose of sending documents which are to be delivered in time. Chartered Accountant Services was availed to comply with the accountancy and the legal formality. Cleaning Services were availed for keeping premises hyginically and fit for working Air travel agent Services were availed for canvassing clients/work order from abroad. It was also necessary to attend seminars/meetings abroad. Management, maintenance or repair services were availed for the purpose of maintenance/up keeping of the premises. Commercial Training or Coaching Services was availed for improving the knowledge of the employees, Business support Services, Management or Business Consulting Services, and Business Auxiliary Services were availed for the purpose for improving business as well as rendering output services efficiently. The Tribunal in the case of Alliance Global Services IT India (P) Ltd., Vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad [2016 (44) S.T.R. 113 (Tri. Hyd.) had occasion to analyze the above services and held that these services qualify as input services and are eligible for credit. Following the same and considering the facts as put forth by the counsel, I hold that the rejection of refund is unjustified. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the refund claim in regard to services other than outdoor catering services is set aside. The appeal is thus partly allowed in above terms, with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Dictated & pronounced in open court) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Lakshmi 5