TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stered later, address of premises not mentioned on the invoices etc. 2.1 Appellant is engaged in providing taxable services namely 'Information Technology Services', 'Maintenance and Repair Services', 'Technical Testing and Analysis Service' and 'Business Support Services'. 2.2 The Appellant was exporting Information Technology Software Services and Business Support Service and availing Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid on input service. 2.3 They were filing refund claims in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012- CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012, for claiming the cash refund Cenvat Credit availed by them in respect of input/ input services received by them for providing the taxable services exported. The appellant filed refund claims for the quarter October 2015 to December 2015 and January 2016 to March 2016. These refund claims were partially rejected holding that the CENVAT Credit as claimed by the appellant was not admissible. Details of Orders-in-Original disallowing the claim is as follows:- Appeal No Period Date of claim Order in Original Date Refund Disallowed ST/70175/2018 October 2015 to December 2015 29.07.2016 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant shall be entitled to interest for delay in deciding the refund on the amount for which refund was rejected. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Chronology of events leading to the present appeals as admitted by the appellant is as stated in the tables below: Dates and Events of Service Tax Appeal No.71075 of 2018 S. No. Dates Events Amount (in Rs.) 1. 29.07.2016 Refund Application filed (for quarter Oct. 2015 to Dec. 2015) 10,00,00,000 2. 02.09.2016 Refund claim withdrawn by the party pertaining to Life Insurance 55,06,248 3. 14.12.2016 Refund Sanctioned by the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original no. 73/R/AC/STD-I/2016-17 8,69,90,800 4. REFUND REJECTED [S.no. 1 - (S.no. 2+ S.no. 3)] 75,02,952 5. 14.12.2016 Show Cause Notice was issued for denying Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,40,23,838/- wrongly stating the rejection of refund of the same amount. 6. 28.02.2017 Order-in-Original was issued disallowing Cenvat Credit of Rs. 1,40,23,838/- but stating the same as rejection of refund. 7. 28.02.2017 After disallowance of the refund claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee. I observe that Gym equipment / body grooming blades meant for GYM are for personal use of the employees and has no nexus with output services provided by the company to its clients. Therefore. I hold that it is not eligible for credit as input service. (3) Photocopy, binding, printing charges (Rs.1.66.212/-+2,77,839/--As regards credit on the printing, photocopying and binding charges, I find that such activities are part of routine work of the office and the said charges have nexus with output service provided by the appellant and as such are eligible for credit as input service and for refund. (4) Event management service (Rs. 21,46,870/- Rs.10,64,999/-) Reman I observe that the adjudicating authority had denied the credit on the basis that such services were for personal use of employees. The appellant has contended that they had organized events for conveying the business policy and the system to its employees, which are used for augmentation of the business of Company. The events were attended by the employees of the Appellant. The event had been organized in respect of sales promotion, staff development....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e would adversely affect the efficiency of the company. Further, credit on courier service was allowed in their own case vide OIA NO. 356/16-17 dated 21.02.17. Hence I hold that the credit on the same is admissible. (7) Charges for creative design Charges for Video Creation agenda Design. Info graphic charges, Digital photography, and creative services (Rs.30800/-+118851/-+ 122639/-+ 355543/-+ 3022/-+32418/- +113520/-):- Appellant has claimed that these services are used for the purpose of various internal projects. These were used in relation to training and coaching to its employees and for generation of new innovative ideas for business promotion. Design/info graphic and Digital photography are used for presentation for marketing purposes. I find that keeping in view the nature of output service namely "Information Technology Software Services" provided by the appellant their submissions are quite satisfactory as use of such services have nexus with output services. Accordingly, I allow the credit and consequential relief on these services. (8) Servico insurance description of service not given on invoice (Rs.17,472/-):- The appellant has pleaded that it pertains to art ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices involving credit of Rs. 81,09,203/- & Rs. 11,25,834/- were for premises registered on 26.02.2016 and 31.01.2017 respectively. The refund of credit pertains to period October 2015 to December' 2015 i.e. for the period before registration of the said premises. Hence it is an admitted fact that when services were received and used the said premises were not registered. They have further admitted that in case of appeal No.960/ 2016-17, invoices involving credit Rs.98,583/ were received at unregistered address. In case of appeal No. 448/16-17 invoices for Rs. 14,68,347/ were for unregistered address ie. the addresses of HCL Comnet Ltd and ICL Technologies BPO Services Ltd. B-34/3, Sector 59, Noida They have pleaded that registration is not pre-requisite for refund of input services. I do not find any force in appellant's contention. CENVAT Credit Rules have been framed under the authority of Section 37 of Central Excise Act'1944. Accordingly, Cenvat credit is admissible only to a registered person and that too on fulfillment of other legal requirements. In case of centralized registration the premises which are not registered can not be considered as registered per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant has pleaded that they are eligilile for refund on the basis of photocopies of the invoices. Under the law credit is allowed on prescribed documents which are invoices in the instant case. In the normal circumstances where an assessee receives original invoice, he is eligible for the credit automatically unless it is found that credit was legally not admissible Where original document is missing an assessee can not claim credit automatically without satisfying the authorities that credit has been rightly availed. Authenticity of documents must be proved to the satisfaction of the authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow credit on the basis of photocopies of the invoices provided the appellant can demonstrate to the original authority that payment for these invoices was made and credit is otherwise legally admissible on the basis of such invoices." We find that the Appellant is contesting the observations/findings made by the Adjudicating Authority and First Appellate Authority in the impugned orders. In respect of the same situation the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s HCL Technologies vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Final ....