Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CCE Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2010 (20) STR 577  Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt.
Ltd. Vs Commr. Of ST, New Delhi - 2020 (41) GSTL  Deepak Fertilizerrs & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Vs CCE - ST/85752/2014  VITP Private Limited Vs Commr. Of Central Tax, Hyderabad-IV - ST/27964/2013  CCE Vs Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (11) STR 266  DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi-IV -
"Therefore, the definition of input service read as a whole makes it clear that the said definition not only covers services, which are used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, but also includes other services, which have direct nexus or which are integrally connected with the business of manufacturing the final product...."

7.2. The analysis of various definitions makes it clear that where goods or services are utilized by the provider of output service for providing any taxable output service, the same qualify as inputs, 10 ST/3090/2012 input services and as a result, the excise duty/ service tax paid on such inputs, input services can be availed by the service provider as CENVAT credit. In fact, Renting of Immovable Property Service cannot be provided in the absence of aforementioned input services which were received by the appellant for construction of building which itself is to be used in the provision of output service of Renting of Immovable Property and in the absence of aforesaid input services, the Renting of Immovable Property Service cannot be provided at all. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is eligible to take credit of the service tax paid on input services received by the appellant. We also find that in the case of Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein in Para 20, the Tribunal, relying on various decisions of High Courts, held that there is no manner of doubt that CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on inputs, input services and capital goods service used for construction of the Mall, which was ultimately let out could not have been denied to the appellant. The findings to the contrary recorded by the Commissioner cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, set aside.

7.3. Further, we find that in the case of M/s VITP Private Limited (supra), the Tribunal relying on the judgement of the Principal Bench in the case of M/s Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that we are inclined to allow the CENVAT credit of input services as availed by the appellant for construction of immovable property which was further let out to various customers. Further, we find that in the appellant's case in 11 ST/3090/2012 Appeal No. ST/60752/2017, this Tribunal allowed the appeal vide Final Order No. A/60018/2018 dated 03.10.2018 and under Para 9, it has been held that as all the inputs/ input services has been used by the appellant for construction of a building which has been let out by the appellant and paying service tax thereon under the category to 'Renting of Immovable Property Service'. We also find that in the case of the sister concern of the appellant, this Tribunal, vide its Final Order No. A/62037-62038/2018 dated 22.03.2018, held that as the issue has already been decided by this Tribunal holding that any inputs, input service and capital goods used for providing output service viz. 'Renting of Immovable Property Service', the assessee is entitled to avail CENVAT credit.