TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CENVAT Credit pertaining to various periods. After due process of law, the Original Authority sanctioned the refund partially and rejected some amounts, on various grounds. Being aggrieved by the partial rejection of the refund claims, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), who vide orders impugned herein rejected the appeals filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 3.1.1 On behalf of the appellant, Shri K. Sivarajan, Learned Chartered Accountant, appeared and argued the matter. He furnished a table showing the periods and amounts involved, which is reproduced below:- Sl. No. Period involved Appeal No. Amount (in Rs.) 1. October 2008 ST/41135/2015 3,60,274/- 2. November 2008 ST/41137/2015 2,80,536/- 3. December 2008 ST/41131/2015 6,11,511/- 4. January 2009 to March 2009 ST/41130/2015 9,70,191/- 5. January 2010 to March 2010 ST/41138/2015 14,36,854/- 6. April 2010 to June 2010 ST/41136/2015 30,99,021/- 7. July 2010 to September 2010 ST/41134/2015 91,16,317/- 8. October 2010 to December 2010 ST/41140/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding lunch during employee induction programmes. That such catering facilities were availed during training programmes and the amount has not been recovered from the employees. He submitted that the issue as to whether Outdoor Catering Service is eligible for credit or not prior to 01.04.2011 has been laid to rest by various decisions of the Tribunal as well as High Courts. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 663 - Allahabad High Court] and M/s. R.R. Donnelley India Outsource Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2019 (1) TMI 1244 - CESTAT, Chennai]. Learned Consultant added that after 01.04.2011, the appellant has not availed any credit on these services. (b) Customs House Agent: These services were availed by the appellant for clearance of computers, laptops, etc., which were imported into India. The goods were used by the appellant for providing output services and the services of the Customs House Agent was necessary for filing Bill-of-Entry and paying necessary Customs duties/charges. He relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Scope International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2011. (h) Sodexo Pass: The Learned Consultant explained that Sodexo Passes were distributed to the employees for availing facilities provided by the company. The appellant has not made any recovery towards the service charges relating to this service. That such passes are eligible for credit prior to 01.04.2011. He relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Ford Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2018-TIOL-2912-CESTAT-MAD]. He added that after 01.04.2011, the appellant had not availed any credit on Sodexo Passes. (i) Pre-employment Health Checkup: It is explained by the Learned Consultant for the appellant that these services relate to the health checkup of the employees done during the recruitment process. That after issuing the offer letter, the employees have to undergo health checkup, which is done by the appellant-company. Since such services are availed in relation to recruitment of the employees, they would fall within the definition of input service. It is submitted by him that credit on such services have been availed after 01.04.2011 also. (j) Event Management Service: These services were availed in relation to conducting events related to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14-TIOL-1946-CESTAT-BANG]. (s) Business Auxiliary Service / Goods Transport Agency Service: Learned Consultant for the appellant explained that such services were availed for transportation of goods imported and in regard to Customs House Agent services, which were received from M/s. Anvase Exim Pvt. Ltd. (t) Printing of spot awards: Credit in regard to these services was availed prior to 01.04.2011 and such services were used for felicitation of employees who contribute to work exceptionally. That these services are in the nature of activities relating to business and are eligible for credit as these were availed prior to 01.04.2011 only. (u) Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC): These services were availed towards Annual Maintenance Contracts for fire alarms and security control equipment. Learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that these services are essential for providing output services and are eligible for credit. (v) Business Support Services: The appellant had availed these services for day-to-day updates on forex market from M/s. Green Back Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. and also towards necessary printing of stationery / awards for empl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of computing eligible refund; the unbilled revenue as on 31.12.2010 has to be recognized as revenue as per the Accounting Standards. That such unbilled revenue is billed subsequently in the month of January 2011 as per the billing cycle and also disclosed as export turnover. 3.5.2 In the half-yearly Service Tax returns for the relevant period, the appellant is required to disclose the gross amount for which bills / invoices / challans are issued relating to service provided / to be provided (including export of service and exempted service) and the gross amount received in money against services provided. That there is no requirement to disclose accruals / unbilled revenue in the Service Tax return. If the Original Authority had included the unbilled revenue in the total turnover, he should also have included the same in the export turnover as well. That for this reason, the computation of total turnover is not proper. 3.6 Wrong formula applied for computation of eligible refund: The Learned Consultant for the appellant added that the authorities below have erred in computing the refund formula as they have computed on the basis of the net credit for the period and not on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat has been settled and paid by the appellant under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. He submitted that for the period covered in these appeals, the appellant was issued Show Cause Notice alleging wrong availment of ineligible CENVAT Credit. After due process of law, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 06/2013 dated 31.01.2013 confirmed the demand of Rs.1,04,56,207/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the pendency of the appeal against such order, the appellant opted for the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme and paid 50% of the dues as confirmed in the above order. He submitted that the refund claim pertaining to the above appeals for the period from April 2010 to March 2011 is Rs.1,43,26,854/- [Rs.30,99,021/- + Rs. 91,16,317/- + Rs. 11,89,790/- + Rs. 9,21,726/-]. The amount confirmed pursuant to the Show cause Notice alleging wrong availment of credit is Rs.1,04,56,207/-. 3.12.2 He adverted to the "Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - FAQs" issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, stating that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... providing output services. 4.2.3 She argued that Business Support Services have been availed by the appellant after 01.04.2011 not only for updates on Forex Market, but also towards printing of stationery and awards for employees. That printing of awards for the employees cannot be held to be eligible after 01.04.2011 and has been rightly rejected by the authorities below. 4.3 It is submitted by the Learned Authorized Representative for the respondent that the credit denied for the reason that the appellant has not produced invoices to the tune of Rs.13,147/- is legal and proper. 4.4 So also, that the rejection of an amount of Rs.50,730/- on the ground that the invoices do not show that Service Tax has been charged by the service provider is correct and the rejection on this ground has to be upheld. 4.5 With regard to the arguments put forward by the Learned Consultant for the appellant that they are eligible for the refund pertaining to the period from April 2010 to March 2011, where the appellant has settled the dues by opting for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, she submitted that when the appellant has opted for the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, the same amount can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... services for Printing of Spot Awards after 01.04.2011. Needless to say, these services are not eligible for credit after 01.04.2011. 7.2.2 It is also seen that the appellant has availed credit on Pre-employment Health Checkup services even after 01.04.2011. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Department has argued that these services are not eligible for credit since such services are availed prior to the recruitment of an employee. From the details given by the Learned Consultant for the appellant, we find that such services are availed even before the employee is recruited by the appellant-company. For this reason, accepting the arguments put forward by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Department, we are of the view that credit on these services is not eligible after 01.04.2011. 7.2.3 So also, with regard to Travel Agent Service, it is submitted by the Learned Consultant for appellant that such services are availed for business travel and related activities. After 01.04.2011, there are certain restrictions with regard to leave and home travel concessions. The appellant is required to furnish details in respect of the purpose and places of travel alon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant for appellant that the formula has been wrongly applied by the authorities below for computing the quantum of eligible refund since the net credit has been used instead of the total credit taken by the appellant, while applying the formula for the disputed period. The said issue as to whether net credit or total credit has to be taken into consideration while applying the formula for computing refund is settled by various decisions as in the case of M/s. Global Markets Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s. Morgan Stanley Investment Management Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and this issue has to be re-looked by the Adjudicating Authority. 11. Another ground with regard to computation of eligible refund is that the export turnover has been restricted by the authorities below to the documents proving the realisation of export proceeds. In this regard, we have to say that the refund is eligible only in respect of the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) (realization of export proceeds) produced by the appellant. However, taking note of the argument put forward by the appellant with regard to wrong computation of eligible refund, we are of the view that the matter has to be once again v....