TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st on the confirmed demand at the para (i) above, at the appropriate rate as applicable from time to time from M/s HCL Technologies Ltd., A-10-11, Sector-3, Noida under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 23,50,19,907- (Rs. Twenty Three Crores Fifty Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seven only) upon M/s HCL Technologies Ltd., A-10-11, Sector-3, Noida under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and order to recover the same from M/s HCL Technologies Ltd., A-10-11, Sector-3, Noida. (iv) I drop the balance demand proposed in the impugned Show Cause Notice as discussed supra." 2.1 Appellant is a global IT services company engaged in the development of SOFTWARE & Exporting thereof through internet from its centers at Bangalore, Chennai, Gurgaon. Hyderabad etc to various customers situated outside India. They are registered with centralized registration No. AAACH1845PST001 for its 58 business premises across the county under the category of Information Technologies Software Service" and certain other taxable services i.e. Consulting Engineer Manpower Recruitment Agency, Management Consultants Architect Services, Business Exhibition S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... April 11 to June 11 14.49,333 72,898 69,33,103 18 July 11 to Sep 11 0 786 1,30,37,723 TOTAL 16,08,65,969 31,49,154 9,39,07,204 Total Inadmissible Credit 25,79,22,317 2.5 Further it was observed that due to mis-statement/misinterpretation of the facts and information submitted/data at the time of verification in respect of inadmissible input services i.e. Advertising Service, Sponsorship service and Insurance Auxiliary Services/General Insurance Service, the total inadmissible refund of Cenvat credit of service tax paid has been erroneously refunded to the appellant. Details of such erroneous refund claim paid to the appellant are as follows:- Period Input Service Total Erroneous refund Insurance Auxiliary Advertising Sponsorship May-Jun 08 36224447 0 0 36224447 Jul-Sep 08 0 2724017 150012 2874029 Oct-Dec 08 0 1215320 1980 1217300 Jan-Mar 09 0 2138937 127692 2266629 Apr-Jun 10 0 3720625 122302 3842927 Jul-Sep 10 0 3084111 315044 3399155 Oct-Dec 10 0 2288437 470653 2759090 Total ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng credit of various input services received by them. They were also filing ST-3 returns for claiming the credit, the jounces of the present proceedings as per the facts recorded in the impugned order is on the basis of the refund claims filed by the appellant under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT). During the course of verification of these refund claims starts from 14.05.2009, the first refund claim as per the impugned order filed on 14.05.2009 for the period from 16.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 along with documents as required for claiming refund claim. Thereafter, regular refund claims were filed and all the documents provided. When all the facts were being made known to the department in the form of the credit declared in ST-3 return and also in the form of the refund claims filed, there cannot be a valid ground for invocation of extended period of limitation. For invoking extended period impugned order record's as follows:- "Invoking of extended period- 5.51. Besides it, the party has also contested the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 19.10.2012 covering the period 01.04.2007 to 30.09.2011 by invoking proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and it was issued well within the time limit. Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Rajasthan State Beverage Corporation Limited 2013(TIOL) 1110-CESTAT(Delhi) wherein it was held that:- "Despite the clear obligation enjoined by the unambiguous provisions of the Act the appellant neither obtained registration as a taxable service provider nor filed periodical returns nor remitted Service Tax as mandated by the provisions of the Act. The tax evasion by the appellant came to notice of revenue only when intelligence officers of the Anti Evasion Wing came upon information of the activities of the appellant. ............................................................. The requisite information was provided by the appellant to Revenue in bits and pieces. In these totality of circumstances, the conclusion by revenue that there was willful suppression of relevant material with a view to evade liability to tax cannot be faulted nor considered inconsistent with the statutory prescription that just....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is determination is required to be made on the basis of his own judgment and in a bona fide manner. 24. The extent of disclosure that an assessee makes is also linked to his belief as to the requirements of law. In the present case the assessee who was required to self-assess his liability determined the assessable value on the basis of an interpretation given by CESTAT in its order dated 28-7-2000. It could not have foreseen that the view taken by CESTAT would be upset and overturned by the Supreme Court as it happened on 9-8-2005. The assessee's conduct during the material period i.e. between 2000 to 2005 cannot be considered to be mala fide when it merely followed the view taken by the Tribunal in IFGL's case (supra). On the question of disclosure of facts, as we have already noticed above the assessee had disclosed to the department its pricing policy by giving separate letters. It is also not disputed that the returns which were required to be filed were indeed filed. In these returns, as we noticed earlier there was no separate column for disclosing details of the deemed export clearances. Separate disclosures were required to be made only for exports under bond and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter 24.04.2012. The amendment made with effect from 28.05.2012 could not revive this time barred demand. 4.5 Impugned order records in para 5.49 in respect of admissible and inadmissible Cenvat credit. The said para is reproduced below:- "5.49 Thus, the amount of admissible credit as per above discussion and findings can be summarized as under- S. No. Input service/Discrepancy Allowed CENVAT in Rs. 1 Cleaning Activity 3,807,085 2 Address mentioned in the invoice is not mentioned in the Centralized Registration Certificate 3,583,098 3 Legal Consultancy Service 3,162,979 4 Chartered Accountants Service 2,609,095 5 Minor Discrepancies in invoices 2,132,255 6 Conference & Meetings & Other minor discrepancies 2,019,682 7 Assistance in processing of Refund Claim and filing return 945,223 8 Car Parking & Rent of Cafeteria 599,086 9 Technical Inspection Certification/ Technical Testing Analysis 405,337 10 Issuance Of Certificate 274,728 11 Pest Control Services 250,916 12 Bills not containing PAN Based ST Registration or ST Registration 206,146 13 Professio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowed 23,50,19,907 Cenvat credit allowed 7,54,85,997 In view of above discussions and findings, I confirm the demand of Rs.23,50,19,907/- and drop the balance demand of Rs.7,54,85,997/- in the instant case." 4.6 We find that in respect of the services on which credit is sought to be denied and which are within the normal period of limitation, appellant has submitted that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal in various decisions. The details submission made by the appellant service wise is reproduced below:- Sr. No. Input Service Purpose Decisions 1. Insurance Auxiliary Service [Rs. 14,49,333 - April 2011 to September 2011] Availing credit of service tax paid on Group Mediclaim Insurance Policies for its employees, which covers hospitalization expenses. Even Post 2011, the credit was available as cost of insurance was borne by the Appellant. ⮚ Commissioner of Customs, CE and ST, Noida vs. M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. ST/56714/2013 - Cestat Allahabad. ⮚ M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Vice- versa 2016 (42) STR 48 ⮚ Commissioner of Central Excise vs. HCL Technologies 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al activities etc. these services were mainly used for sales promotion and advertisement. ⮚ HCL Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, 2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.) ⮚ Commr. of C.EX. & S.T, Noida v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2017 (52) S.T.R. 497 (Tri-Allahabad) M/S Monneygram India P. ltd. v. Assistant commissioner, 2020(3) TMI 744 (Tri Mumbai) ⮚ M/S Warburg Pincus India Pvt.ltd v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai, 2022 (11) TMI 695 (Tri Mumbai) 6. Event Management Services [1,61,518 - April 2011 to September 2011] Such events were held to promote its sales and in relation to staff development, and overall betterment of the business. 7. No proper service description in the Invoice [Rs. 38,441- July 2011 to September 2011] Appellant has availed the services from M/s Cigma Events Pvt. Ltd. for conducting HCL Direction events at different places 8. Accommodation Services [Rs. 6,386 - July 2011 to September 2011] For the employees who travel different places within India and outside India for onsite support and software implementation. ⮚ M/s. Bangalore International Airport Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Central E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollows: "14. In the present case the undisputed facts reveal that the orders passed by the authorities, appellate authority and the Tribunal are based upon the amendment which came into force from 1-4-2011. For deciding the controversy in the present case, the definition of 'input service' prior to amendment and post-amendment are necessary and they are reproduced as under : Post 1-4-2011 the definition of 'input service' stood thus : Rule 2(l) "input service" means any service, - (i) used by a provider of output service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products, up to the place of removal, and includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal" 15. The undisputed facts make it very clear that the period involved in the present appeal is admittedly of post-2011 period and after the amendment to the provisions of Rule 2(l) defining the 'input service' and the amendment to the provision of Rule 2(l) defining the 'input service' came into effect w.e.f., 1-4-2011. The definition of 'input service' post-amendment contains exclusion clause and exclusion clause was effected w.e.f. 1-4-2011. Clause (c) of the said exclusion clause specifically excludes the services provided in relation to 'outdoor catering' services. It is certainly not in dispute that said services prior to 1-4-2011 have been held to be covered by the definition of 'input service', however, after the amendment came into force in the light of specific exclusion clause, 'outdoor catering' service is not at all covered under the definition of 'input service' Affirming the above Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. [Order dated in ST/88566/2018] 4.11 We have perused the decision of Bangalore Bench in the case Bangalore International Airport Limitation, in the said decision assessee has himself given up his claim in respect of the accommodation service, and the credit was reversed. The relevant paragraph from the said decision is reproduced below: 12. As regards denial of CENVAT credit on Guest House caretaker salary, Adjudicating authority denied the same on the ground that the said services do not have any nexus with the output service provided by the assessee. The same is used for the personal benefit /consumption of the employees and hence do not qualify as input service in terms of the Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence the credit availed by the assessee is irregular. In this regard, Learned Counsel further submitted that in Appeal No. ST/21313/2017, an amount of Rs. 77,851 has already been reversed by the Appellant and hence, the same may be appropriated towards reversal required for Guest House and breakfast expenses for Carnatic Music Festival. 4.12 The issue under consideration in case of DBOI Global Services Pvt Ltd. [Final Order No 85491/2023 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,280 Para 4.15 Total 7,06,679 4.17 Apart from the above, we find that appellant have given compilation in respect of all the amounts except amount mentioned in the above table at Sl. No.20 of the impugned order, we also note that impugned order in para 5.48 records the findings in respect of the said amount is as follows:- "5.48. The party has further contended that CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.8,93,57,819/-has been added twice in the computation of the total amount of CENVAT Credit proposed for recovery vide the present SCN Le. Rs. 31,05,05,904/- They have also submitted a chart showing the error in calculation. They have further submitted that the present SCN contains two charts particularly Chart-A and Chart-B on Page Number 42 and 43 respectively. The total of Chart A and B amount to Rs.31,05,05,904/- (25,79,22,327/- + 5,25,83,577/-). However, in arriving at this total, certain amounts have been added twice. They have submitted that one amount cannot be recovered twice. That, SCN, if any, should be for recovery of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 22,11,48,085/- and not for Rs.31,05,05,904/-. Thus, the SCN to the extent it is proposing to....