2024 (6) TMI 1327 - AT - Service Tax

Hotel services provider wins partial CENVAT Credit appeal for security and professional services under Rule 3

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility to avail CENVAT Credit on various input services.2. Denial of CENVAT Credit on security services and professional services.3. Denial of CENVAT Credit on vehicle hire charges, vehicle expenses, and club membership charges.4. Alleged excess availment of CENVAT Credit.5. Imposition of penalty and invocation of the extended period.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility to avail CENVAT Credit on various input services:The appellants, engaged in providing output services in the hospitality sector, availed CENVAT Credit on input services such as security services and commission/service charges. The dispute pertains to whether these services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had paid applicable service tax on these services and were eligible to avail CENVAT Credit. The primary contention was whether the services were used in or in relation to the provision of output services.2. Denial of CENVAT Credit on security services and professional services:The Tribunal examined the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, which includes services used by a provider of output service for providing an output service. Security services and professional services, such as those used for safeguarding land parcels and brokerage for land transactions, were deemed essential for providing output services. The Tribunal concluded that these services fall within the 'means' and 'inclusion' parts of the definition of 'input service' and are not covered by the 'exclusion' part. Therefore, the denial of CENVAT Credit on these services was found to have no legal basis.3. Denial of CENVAT Credit on vehicle hire charges, vehicle expenses, and club membership charges:The Tribunal upheld the denial of CENVAT Credit on vehicle hire charges, vehicle expenses, and club membership charges amounting to Rs.14,231/-. These services fall under the exclusion clauses (B) and (C) of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Vehicle hire services and expenses relate to motor vehicles, which are not considered capital goods under the definition, and club membership services are primarily for personal use, making them ineligible for CENVAT Credit.4. Alleged excess availment of CENVAT Credit:The Tribunal found no justification for the demand of excess CENVAT Credit of Rs.26,449/-. The alleged excess availment was based on discrepancies in ST-3 returns, but there was no evidence of ineligible CENVAT Credit taken by the appellants. The Tribunal held that excess credit cannot be calculated based on incorrect declarations in ST-3 returns without identifying specific grounds and evidence.5. Imposition of penalty and invocation of the extended period:The Tribunal did not record any findings on the invocation of the extended period and imposition of penalty, as the appeal was disposed of on merits. However, it noted that in cases involving interpretation of law, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, and penalties cannot be imposed for evasion or violation of law. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of denial of CENVAT Credit on security services and commission/service charges amounting to Rs.3,51,394/- and the alleged excess CENVAT Credit of Rs.26,449/-. The denial of CENVAT Credit on vehicle hire charges, vehicle expenses, and club membership charges amounting to Rs.14,231/- was upheld. The penalty imposed on the appellants was also set aside. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.3,77,843/-.