2017 (6) TMI 50 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants refund for various services under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order and granting the appellant a refund for services including renting of ... 100% EOU - Refund claim - input services - photocopying services - housekeeping services - renting of immovable property services - Held that: - with regard to refund on account of input services relating to photocopying and housekeeping, reliance placed in the case of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it has been that any input service in or in relation to business fall under the definition of input service - both these services fall in the definition of input service and we allow refund by holding the same as input service - appeal allowed to appellant subject to verification of invoices relating to housekeeping and photocopying - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Denial of refund on certain services by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Eligibility of renting of immovable property as an input service.3. Refund on account of input services related to photocopying and housekeeping.Analysis:1. The appeal was against the Commissioner (Appeals) order disallowing refund on housekeeping, photocopying, and service tax paid on renting of immovable property services. The appellant argued that the denial was not sustainable as it did not consider the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and higher judicial decisions supporting these services as input services. The appellant contended that they are eligible for refund on renting of immovable property service as per Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, regardless of the landlord's tax deposit proof. They cited precedents like Lason India Pvt. Ltd. and Sadashiv Casting Pvt. Ltd. to support their claim.2. The appellant further argued that the impugned order acknowledged renting of immovable property as an eligible input service but wrongly denied the refund due to lack of proof of tax deposit by the landlord. They emphasized that it is not the appellant's duty to verify the tax deposit by the service provider and relied on legal precedents to support their stance. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III, stating that any input service in or in relation to business falls under the definition of input service. Therefore, the Tribunal held that renting of immovable property is an input service and allowed the refund.3. Regarding the refund on input services related to photocopying and housekeeping, the appellant relied on the same Bombay High Court decision to argue that these services also fall within the definition of input service. The Tribunal concurred with this argument and allowed the refund for these services, subject to verification of the invoices related to housekeeping and photocopying. The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal based on the arguments presented and the legal precedents cited, emphasizing the broad scope of input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.