CENVAT CREDIT ALLOWED FOR VARIOUS INPUT SERVICES

BRIEF FACTS

The Appellant [M/s HCL Technologies Ltd] is inter alia engaged in providing taxable service of Information Technology Service, Maintenance & Repair Service, Technical testing & Analysis Service and Business Support Service and also making export of services.

  1. The Appellant is availing facility of Cenvat Credit. For the period October 2011 to December 2011, refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006 was filed. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim of refund of Rs. 29,10,826/- on some input services. Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, the Appellant filed an appeal, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refund of credit of Rs.77, 540/- only. Thus Cenvat credit to the extent of Rs.28,33,287/- on various input services was disallowed.
  2. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an Appeal vide Service Tax Appeal No. ST/51400/2014-ST(SM) against the Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/159/13 dated 31.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Noida.
  3. The details of input services for which refund was denied as per the impugned order can be summarised as under:-
S.No. Input Services Amount in Rupees Reasons for denying the credit/refund
1. Car Parking Service 37427/- No nexus between input service and output service provided.
2. Room Service Charges 1442/- It is for stay of an individual and has nothing to do with the export of service.
3. Dry Cleaning Charges 28292/- It is not essential for the export of service.
4. Renting of equipments for organizing events 706889/- No nexus between the input service and output service provided.
5. VAT Registration of additional place 361/- It is not ascertainable from the invoice, the additional place which got registered.
6. Advertisement and Sponsorship Services 1849953/- It is for promotion of their brand and Brand HCL also includes hardware.
7. Out of Pocket expenses 84905/- It has no nexus with provision of the output service.
8. Fee for Visa and immigration 26,050/- It is not eligible for spouse and daughter.
9. Maintenance of garden 11,872/- It has no nexus with provision of the output service.
10. Rent-a-cab service 22,751/- Service has been used prior to the relevant period (refund claim for the period Oct. 2011 to Dec. 2011).
11. Charges for accommodation 63,345/- Service have been availed to provide onsite support and software implementation to the domestic customers and not overseas customers

HELD

Vide Final Order No. 52149/2015 dated 10.07.2015, the Hon’ble CESTAT allowed the credit/refund of various input services except the credit/refund of the following input services:

  • Vat registration services,
  • Out of pocket expenses,
  • Fee for Visa and immigration and
  • Charges for accommodation.

The basis or reasoning for allowing the credit/refund of various input services is mentioned below:

Input Services Reasoning
Car Parking Service The Appellant relied on the following judgments:

BCH Electric Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV 2013 (31) STR 68 (Tri.-Delhi),

KPMG Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri.-Delhi),

CST, Bang. Vs. Mercedes Benz Research & Devlp.

India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (30) STR 257 (Tri.-Bang.). 

In these cases it has been held that the service of renting Car parking space used for parking of the vehicles of the Officers/Employees of the assessees Company has nexus with the business of the assessee and has to be treated as an activity related to business.  Applying the ratio laid in the above judgments, it was held that the Appellant is entitled to credit towards such input services.

Room Service Charges Appellant’s contention

The payment, according to the Appellant, is made towards hotel bills for stay of auditor when he visited Chennai for audit of the Appellant’s Company.  The inclusive part of the definition of input service includes auditing.

Department’s view

According to the learned DR, this would be the fee/charges paid to the auditing firm/company and does not have any intentions to include everything in the name of audit.

Held

Auditing is an essential activity for the Company.  The definition of input services is so wide, and it does not restrict or confine the scope of the service mentioned in the inclusive part.  Therefore, it was held that the Appellant is entitled to credit towards such input services.

Dry Cleaning Charges As per the documents the services were dry cleaning of carpet, cleaning of chairs and glass etc.  In the cases of Paper Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III 2013 (30) STR 310 (Tri.-Mum.) it has been held that cleaning services has nexus with business activity of manufacture when cleaning service are undertaken in the premises of the Appellant’s Company. The credit on this score is allowed.
Renting of equipments for organizing events

The credit/refund was denied for the reason that the invoices suggest that these activities relate to parties, entertainment activities, corporate tournaments and that there is no nexus between the input services and the services exported.

The Appellant submitted that such events were for promoting sales, for staff development and augmenting the business of the company.

Appellant relied on the judgments in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Ltd. Vs. CCE., LTU. Bangalore 2011 (24) STR 645 (Kar.) and Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE., Aurangabad 2012 (32) STR 95 (Tri.-Mum.) in which cases the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee.

The types of input services covered for the purpose of allowing Cenvat Credit of service tax paid is very wide.  In a catena of decisions it has been laid that any service in relation to the business of providing the output service would get covered.

Advertisement and Sponsorship Services

Department’s contention

The credit was denied observing that these services were availed for promotion of the appellants brand HCL which includes hardware for which, the brand HCL is well known.

It is the case of the Department that the Appellant being a software company engaged in export, these input services pertains to brand HCL which is widely known for hardware and therefore the Appellant is not entitled to credit.

The Original Adjudicating Authority has taken this view which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).  The Original Adjudicating Authority for that matter has placed reliance on the reply filed by the Appellant.  From the Order-in-Original it is seen stated that from the reply submitted, it is clearly evident that the above services are for promotion of their Brand, and brand HCL also includes hardware for which brand HCL is well known.

The learned DR submitted that the advertisements were for the brand HCL, as the Company is well known for hardware and therefore these services have no nexus with the services of the Appellant company who is engaged in software alone.

Appellant’s submissions

The Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Appellant has nowhere stated in the reply that these input services were availed for promotion of hardware.

Held

The authorities have denied the credit basis on assumptions and presumptions.  In my opinion they have wrongly entered into conclusion that the benefit of advertisement services must be confined to HCL hardware alone, as the brand HCL is more popular for its hardware, and the Appellant being a company engaged in software, is not entitled to the credit.  Further the observation of the adjudicating authority that it is reflected from the written reply submitted by Appellant is factually wrong.  For these reasons, it was held that the Appellant is entitled to the refund/credit towards Advertisement and Sponsorship Services.

Maintenance of garden In a series of judgments the Tribunal has held Garden Maintenance Services qualify as input services.  Therefore the observation of the authorities below that it has no nexus with the output service is untenable.  The same is therefore allowed.
Rent-a-cab service It was pointed out that these services were received between December 2010 to March 2011, where as the refund claim is for the period October 2011 to December 2011.  Further, that the Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) was amended retrospectively w.e.f. 14.3.2006 to grant the refund on all services which are used for providing the output services.  The Appellant also relied on Circular No. 334/1/2010-TRU dated 26.02.2010.  This circular clarifies that there should not be any objection in allowing refund of credit of past period in subsequent quarters.  According to Appellant the service is used to pick up and drop the employees on daily basis so that they reach on time and these facilitate the output services.  It has been settled in a series of judgments that Rent-a-cab service qualifies as input service for the relevant period.

*****

Leave a comment