TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal granted for input services, except Rent-a-cab post 01.04.2011. Missing service provider names resolved.</h1> <h3>M/s. Sai Life Sciences Ltd. Versus CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad</h3> The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant for eligible input services. The appellant was deemed eligible for credit on ... Refund claim - accumulated service tax paid for various input services - export of services without payment of tax - Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services - Held that: - the credit has been allowed on various services following the decisions as held in various cases, except for fleet management services/ Rent-a cab services. The appellant has claimed refund of credit of service tax paid on Rent-a cab services. The appellant has changed the nomenclature of the services from Rent-a-cab service to Fleet Management Services. Such change of name will not make the appellant eligible for credit because the services are used after 01.04.2011. The definition of input services expressly excludes Rent-a cab service and the appellant has not adduced evidence to prove that how they are eligible for credit on such service. Therefore the claim of credit in respect of Rent-a cab service is disallowed. In regard to other services, I hold that they qualify as input services and therefore are eligible for credit. The appellant having produced sufficient details with regard to the service provider and ISD challans and after verification as conceded by the Ld. AR, I hold that this issue is clarified and solved in favor of assessee. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund claim rejection based on nexus between input and output services, Lack of Show Cause Notice in certain appeals, Rejection due to missing service provider name on invoices, Eligibility of Rent-a-cab services for credit post-01.04.2011, Applicability of various input services for credit.Analysis:1. Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant, engaged in providing research and development support to the pharmaceutical industry, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on input services. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected part of the claim citing lack of nexus between input and output services.2. Show Cause Notice Issue: The appellant raised concerns in appeals ST/25637/2013 and ST/27732/2013 regarding the absence of Show Cause Notice for rejection, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The appellant argued that the rejection was unfounded, emphasizing the importance of proper defense.3. Missing Service Provider Name: Another ground for rejection was the absence of the service provider's name on some invoices. The appellant contended that credit was availed through ISD challans issued by the Head Office, questioning the basis of this rejection.4. Eligibility of Rent-a-cab Services: The department argued that Rent-a-cab services were not eligible for credit post-01.04.2011. The appellant's change in nomenclature to Fleet Management Services did not make them eligible, as the services were utilized after the specified date.5. Applicability of Input Services: The Tribunal analyzed various input services like clearing & forwarding, management consultancy, manpower recruitment, etc., citing relevant case laws to establish their eligibility for credit. The Tribunal allowed credit for most services, except Rent-a-cab services, based on the evidence provided by the appellant regarding service providers and ISD challans.6. Decision: The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for credit on most services except Rent-a-cab services. The change in nomenclature did not alter the eligibility status, and the services utilized post-01.04.2011 were not considered for credit. The issue of missing service provider names was resolved in favor of the appellant after verification.7. Outcome: The appeal was partly allowed, granting relief to the appellant for eligible input services. The decision was pronounced at the conclusion of the hearing, providing consequential reliefs as necessary.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
