2020 (2) TMI 354 - AT - Service Tax

Appeals partially succeed on refund denial due to registration and disclosure issues, but fail on service explanation.

M/s. Temenos India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the denial of refund for want of registration and non-disclosure in ST-3 returns while upholding ... Refund of unutilized input Service Tax credit - denial for want of registration - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered by the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, in the appellant’s own case although for a different period, in CST, CHENNAI-III VERSUS M/S. TEMENOS INDIA PVT. LTD. [2018 (4) TMI 1784 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and this Bench, after following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-III, CHENNAI VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI & M/S. SCIOINSPIRE CONSULTING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD, CHENNAI [2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has ruled in favour of the assessee - the denial of refund for want of registration of the premises is bad - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground of ineligibility/want of nexus - various input services - Gardening Service - Housekeeping Service - Transport Charges - Labour Charges for bore-well - Vehicle Hire Charges - Temenos day expenses - Interior Consultancy - Partition work - Insurance Service - Hotel Expenses - Other rental charges - Electrician and Plumber - Tour Operator Service - Pest Control Service - Car Parking Charges - AMC Charges - External Consultant. Gardening services - HELD THAT:- This issue was dealt with by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. MURUGAPPA MORGAN THERMAL CERAMICS LTD. VERSUS CCE AHMEDABAD [2013 (4) TMI 384 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein the Tribunal held that the appellant was required to maintain a garden which is an obligation under the relevant pollution control law and CENVAT Credit with respect to the services used for maintaining the garden would therefore be admissible - refund allowed. Housekeeping services - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III VERSUS HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. [2014 (5) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein the Bench has ruled in favour of the assessee - refund allowed. Transport charges - HELD THAT:- In COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-III VERSUS GREY GOLD CEMENTS LTD. [2014 (9) TMI 673 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble High Court has held that the credit of input service tax on Transportation Charges is proper - refund allowed. Maintenance Charges – (Labour charges for bore-well, Interior Consultancy, Partition work, Electrician and Plumber) - HELD THAT:- The above services can be comfortably clubbed under ‘Maintenance Charges’ and are covered by the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in KIRLOSKAR SYSTEMS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [2014 (12) TMI 787 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - refund allowed. Pest control service - HELD THAT:- The service is very much essential for maintaining a healthy atmosphere in the working premises/factory premises and hence, this would be an essential input service - there is direct nexus of this input service with the output service - refund allowed. Car parking charges - HELD THAT:- The service was held to be an eligible input service by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in PTC SOFTWARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III [2014 (12) TMI 498 - CESTAT MUMBAI] stating that car parking is part of the business premises of the appellant and is a business expenditure - refund allowed. AMC charges - HELD THAT:- The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE [2012 (12) TMI 388 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held that Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) has nexus with manufacture of products and also that AMC for computers are used for manifold purposes in connection with manufacture and clearance of products. In view of the above requisite nexus, the Bench held that the assessee was entitled to take credit of the Service Tax paid - refund allowed. External Consultant service - HELD THAT:- Credit denied on the ground of Incorrect Invoice/Excess Credit, we see no explanation offered by the assessee and hence, the denial of refund is upheld - refund cannot be allowed. Non-disclosure of CENVAT Credit in the ST-3 returns - HELD THAT:- The appellant had contended that the credits were included in the CENVAT Credit Register, which fact has not at all been denied by the authorities below. In this regard, we find the decision in TARGET CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BANGALORE EAST [2019 (10) TMI 1148 - CESTAT BANGALORE] to be very much apt wherein, the co-ordinate Bangalore Bench has inter alia ruled that the denial of refund only on the basis of non-disclosure of CENVAT Credit in ST-3 return was not legally sustainable - refund allowed. Appeal allowed in part. Issues Involved:1. Denial of refund for want of registration of premises.2. Denial of input credit on grounds of ineligibility or lack of nexus.3. Denial of refund due to non-disclosure of CENVAT Credit in ST-3 returns.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Refund for Want of Registration of Premises:The appellant challenged the denial of refund on the ground of unregistered premises. The Tribunal referenced the appellant's own case decided earlier by the Chennai Bench, which followed the Madras High Court's decision in Commissioner of Service Tax-III v. CESTAT, Chennai. The Tribunal ruled that the denial of refund for want of registration was not justified and set aside the impugned order to this extent.2. Denial of Input Credit on Grounds of Ineligibility or Lack of Nexus:The Tribunal examined various services for which input credit was denied. It reviewed precedents from different judicial fora to determine eligibility:- Gardening Service: Allowed based on the Ahmedabad Bench decision in M/s. Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd.- Housekeeping Service: Allowed following the Delhi Bench decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.- Transport Charges: Allowed as per the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-III v. M/s. Gray Gold Cements Ltd.- Maintenance Charges (Labour for bore-well, Interior Consultancy, Partition work, Electrician, and Plumber): Allowed based on the Bangalore Bench decision in M/s. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore.- Pest Control Service: Allowed as essential for maintaining a healthy atmosphere.- Car Parking Charges: Allowed based on the Mumbai Bench decision in M/s. PTC Softwares (India) Pvt. Ltd.- AMC Charges: Allowed following the Bangalore Bench decision in M/s. ADC India Communication Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore.For other services like Temenos Day Expenses, Vehicle Hire Charges, Insurance Service, Hotel Expenses, Communication Charges, Other Rental Charges, Travel Charges, and External Consultant, the Tribunal upheld the denial of refund due to lack of explanation or incorrect invoices.3. Denial of Refund Due to Non-Disclosure of CENVAT Credit in ST-3 Returns:The appellant argued that non-disclosure in ST-3 returns was a procedural lapse and that the credits were included in the CENVAT Credit Register. The Tribunal referenced the Bangalore Bench decision in M/s. Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., which ruled that denial of refund solely on non-disclosure in ST-3 returns was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order on this ground and allowed the claim.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the denial of refund for want of registration and non-disclosure in ST-3 returns while upholding the denial for certain services due to lack of explanation or incorrect invoices. The order was pronounced in open court on 06.02.2020.