Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)
M/S Hcl Technologies Ltd vs C.C. & C.E. & S.T. Noida on 10 August, 2015 cites

Cce, Bhopal vs M/S. Lupin Limited on 4 June, 2010

9. The learned DR vehemently contended that refund/credit is not admissible for cleaning services. According to him some of the invoices show for cleaning work done of the guest house premises of the appellant. The appellants counsel submitted that these guest houses are being maintained for use by employees of the appellants who travel from one place to another for business purposes. The decisions in CCE & ST Vs. Lupin Ltd  2012 (28) STR 291 (Tri.-Mum) and Paper Products Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III  2013 (30) STR 310 (Tri.-Mum.) have held the issue in favour of the assessee. Applying the ratio laid in these decisions, I find that the denial of credit for these services is incorrect.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S Kpmg vs Cce, New Delhi on 2 April, 2013

and KPMG Vs. CCE, New Delhi  2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri.-Del.). The learned DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and contented that credit cannot be availed as these services have no nexus with the output services. On hearing the submissions and perusal of records, the instant case stands covered by the decisions rendered in the above judgments which are held in favour of the assessee. The requirement for availing credit is that the input service must be used for providing the output service. The appellants being a BPO, where the employees have to work in shifts even during night hours, I cannot agree with the view of the authorities below that the such services have no nexus with the out put services provided. The refund on these services is allowed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

M/S Utopia India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 25 February, 2011

8. The claim of Rs.37,548/- on Security Agency Services has been rejected for the reason that it has no nexus with output service. The appellants contended that the issue is covered by the judgments in Utopia India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax  2011 (23) STR 25 (Tri.-Bang.). According to appellants being a Call Centre and BPO, their employees have to work and also leave office at odd hours. The security service was used to provide safety to employees. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the claim holding that the invoices show security guard for pickup and drop of employees and has no nexus with output service. Applying the ratio laid in the above judgment I am of the view that appellants are entitled to credit/refund on these services.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Stelko Strips Ltd. And Otherss on 11 March, 2010

), CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Stelco Strips Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 397 (P&H). It is not disputed that tax was paid for the services utilized; so also there is no dispute that the services were utilized in the taxable output services. These invoices pertain to C & F Agents Service, Management, and Maintenance and repair service, cleaning Service, Manpower Recruitment Service, Security Service Telecommunications Service and Renting of Immovable Property. Out of these Renting of Immovable Property (Rs.52,413/-) has already been held to be not eligible in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore the same requires no further consideration. The other services, except telecommunication services (Rs.193/-) have been found eligible as input services either by the authorities below or in the Preceding Paragraphs. But the authorities below have grouped together the invoices which were defective for the reason of not containing PAN based Service Tax Registration or Service Tax Registration and discussed the claim pertaining to these invoices under separate head. The appellants submit that the invoices issued by Ritzy Securities & Consultants Ltd. (Security Services) contain the PAN and Service Tax No., and therefore denial of claim on this ground is incorrect. Further in the case of some invoices which did not contain the Registration No. of service provider, the appellant has cured the defect by providing the details as Annexure 21. It is also their case that the allegation in SCN was with regard denial of credit was for only three invoices. It has been settled in a catena of decisions that non-mentioning of registration number of the service provider is only a procedural lapse and Credit cannot be denied on account of procedural lapse when substantive entitlement itself is not disputed. Further, the proviso to sub clause (2) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, provide that if documents do not contain full particulars the DC/AC has powers to condone the defects after satisfying whether properly accounted. In view thereof, the rejection of claim for the defects alleged in invoices is incorrect. The claim of credit on disputed invoices for those services which are eligible as input services are allowed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd on 9 May, 2006

The amendment brought forth in the definition of input services w.e.f. 1.4.2011 excludes Rent-a-Cab services. But the department vide Circular No. 943/04/2011-CX dated 29.4.2011 has clarified that the credit on such services shall be available if its provision had been completed before 1.4.2011. According to the appellants the credit was availed for the period October 2010 to December 2010. They also relied upon the judgments rendered in CCE, Bangalore Vs. Bell Ceramics  2012 (25) STR 428 (Kar), CCE, Bangalore Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 23 - M Katju - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai vs M/S. Apar Industries Ltd on 24 March, 2009

which was affirmed in Commissioner Vs. Apar Industries  2011 (23) S.T.R. J194 (Guj.). The learned DR defended the impugned order stating that the services being used within the country are not available for credit as the appellants are engaged in export of services. To carry out the domain activity of exports, the appellants may require to send documents and such other to Offices, units within the country. Merely because the courier service was utilized within the country it cannot be assumed that the services does not have nexus with output services. The principle laid in the above case laws are also squarely applicable to the instant case. Further there is no dispute that these input services were received by the appellant. I hold that the appellants are eligible for refund of Rs.6,670/- towards service tax paid on courier services.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S. Delta Energy Systems Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 26 February, 2013

and Delta Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III  2013 (31) S.T.R. 684 (Tri.- Del.) it has been categorically held that such services qualify as input services. The expression activities relating to business used in the inclusive part of the definition of input service has been given the widest import by judicial pronouncements. It has been held that what needs to be seen is whether the said service can be considered to be an activity relating to business rather than testing whether it is used in manufacture or for providing output service. The service in question, according to appellants was received for maintaining its business premises from where the activities of output service are carried out. Following the ratio laid in the above judgments I find that appellants are entitled to credit of Rs.37,048/- for Management, Maintenance & Repair Service.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next