Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore [2011 (22) S.T.R. 429 (Tri.-Bangalore)] 6 E/59431/2013 & 13 others  Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., [2014] 43 GST 333  Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. Lupin Ltd., [2012] 28 STR 291  Commissioner of C. EX., Ahmedabad-II Vs. Cadila healthcare ltd., 2013 (30) S.T.R. 3 3.4. Credit availed on Architect Service or Architect and Interior Designer Service:

318(T)

8. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The dispute in these appeals is about to various input services i.e. Construction Service, Works Contract Service (for ISD), Interior Decorator's Service (for plant and ISD), Architect and Interior Designer Service (for plant), Mandap Keeper's Service (for ISD), Pandal and Shamiana Service (for plant and ISD), Mandap with Catering Service (for plant), Photography Service (for plant and ISD), Club Association Service (for ISD), Repairing of Motor Vehicles (for ISD), Architect Service (for ISD), Outdoor Catering Service (for ISD), After Sale Service (for plant), Insurance Auxiliary Services, Broadcasting Services, Fashion Designing Services, On-Line information and data base access/ retrieval, Share transfer Agent, Asset Portfolio and fund management.

9. In respect of the most of the above services, the issue is settled in favour of the appellants as per the cases cited above. However, the main objection of the Revenue appears to be in respect of services like Construction Service, Architect Service, Mandap Keeper and Outdoor Catering Service, Club or Association Service, Rent-a-Cab Service and Asset Management Service etc. In respect of the Construction Service, Architect and Interior Design Service, the Revenue relies on the amended definition after 01.04.2011. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that these services of Construction Service etc. are not regard 14 E/59431/2013 & 13 others to any new construction but repair and re-design of the existing facilities and they are integral to the business of the appellant. The services in respect of Rent-a-Cab Service have been availed for use by the officers of the company to attend the office work; however, in respect of services availed after 01.04.2011, they have paid up the amount of Rs.1,08,463/- disputed in the SCNs and they are not in appeal against the same. In respect of Mandap Keeper and Outdoor Catering Services, it is the contention of the appellants that these services are availed for organizing conferences, field demonstrations, dealers' meetings, sponsored programs and training etc. Therefore, these cannot be set to be used by the officers of the company for private purposes. Similarly, the memberships of the clubs are taken in respect of Golf Club where the company sponsors a tournament or memberships of various international professional clubs are taken. We find that there is force in the argument of the appellant. We find that the definition of Input Service is vast and encompasses all the activities that are required for the furtherance of the business. The exclusion that is put in place from 01.04.2011 appears to be in respect of services which are not primarily used for personal use of the officers or staff. We find that no evidence to the effect that the disputed services are availed primarily for the personal use has been brought forth by the SCN and therefore, the submissions of the appellants cannot be brushed aside.