AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business support services to their principal (Hapag-Lloyd AG, Germany) through its office situated in India. They availed cenvat credit on services such as car hire charges, travels, event management, mandap keeper, security services, hotel banquets, photography, decoration and transportation charges. Revenue was of the opinion that these services against which the appellant has taken cenvat credit were having no nexus to the output services provided by them. Periodical show cause notices were issued to them from 2005 to 2014-15. These show cause notices were adjudicated and confirmed. For the subsequent period i.e. 2015 to June 2017 also, show cause notices were issued to the appellant to deny and recover inadmissible cenvat credit. 2.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order-in-appeal. 3.3 Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 For disallowing the cenvat credit, the impugned order holds as follows:- "11. Security Services: The expenses incurred on account of Security Services are in relation to their office premises both in Mumbai & Chennai which caters to international customers on a 24 x 7 basis and are for the security of employees, assets and premises & relied upon that since security Services are specifically mentioned in the definition of input services, the CENVAT credit thereto cannot be denied. Some samp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' as defined under Rule 2(1) of the CCR, 2004 and as per main part of the definition, only when a service is used for providing an output service, it qualifies as "input service'. In other words, a service for being an input service' has to have a nexus with the output service. It is not disputed that Appellant is a software firm which uses many services. for its operation, main service being Business Process outsourcing (BPO) services, if even security services are not used, the output Service of Software development sector would still work. Therefore, in want of collateral documentary proof output nexus is not established that such input service has been actually used by the appellants for their output service in relation to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ravel was undertaken for the business purposes only, as the Individual person could travel for his personal work as well. Further, travel benefit extended to employees when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee has been specifically excluded from the definition of "input service" w.e.f. 1.4.2011(Rule 2(1)(C) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004). I also find that activities relating to business stands deleted from inclusive part of the definition of 'input service under Rute 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2011. Hence, activities relating to business are no more input services with effect from 1.4.2011. The burden of proof regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit shal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as each case should be examined separately being distinct from each other. Further, the activities relating to business, stands deleted from inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2011. Hence, activities relating to business are no more input services with effect from 1.4.2011. So as per the evidence available on records, I therefore agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority in the respective impugned orders and reject the contentions of the appellants in respect of this service. Held Accordingly." 4.3 I find that the same issue for the period 2005, 2014-15 has been considered and finalized by the Commissioner (Appeals) in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al and was to guard its office premises; that the invoices specifically mention the name of the Appellant as the service recipient and hence cannot be said that these services have not been used to guard the premises of the Appellant; that the invoices have been issued in the Appellant's name; that the invoices are paid for by the Appellant as evidenced by bank statements and the expenses incurred in relation to these services are accounted for in the Appellant's books of accounts and the Profit and Loss account which amply prove that these services is for securing official premises of the Appellant. Reliance was interalia among various case laws placed in the case of Cubed Solutions v CCE [2013 (293) ELT 398 (Tri- Bang.)] which I f....