TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of Rs.35,88,48,080/- is allowed by the Adjudication Authority. Aggrieved by the said orders, appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) also allowed Rs.25,67,86,392/- and denied refund of Rs.13,35,86,012/-. Aggrieved by said orders present appeals are filed. Details of the appeals are given below:- Sl. No. Appeal No. (CESTAT) Period Order No. Appealed with (CESTAT) 1 ST/20242/2017 Jul-12 to Sept-12 OIA No. 122- 124/2016/LTU 2 ST/20243/2017 Oct-12 to Dec-12 3 ST/20244/2017 Jan-13 to Mar-13 4 ST/21076/2017 Apr-13 to Jun-13 OIA No. 75/2017/LTU 5 ST/21177/2017 Jul-13 to Sept-13 OIA No. 81 to 84/2017/LTU 6 ST/21180/2017 Oct-13 to Dec-13 7 ST/21178/2017 Jan-14 to Mar-14 8 ST/21179/2017 Apr-14 to Jun-14 9 ST/21247/2017 Jul-14 to Sept-14 OIA No. 97/2017/LTU 2. When the appeals came up hearing, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) for the appellant submits that the considerable part of the claim made by the appellant which is rejected by the Adjudication Authority / Appellate Authority is regarding Business Support Service (BSS) and it is de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that an amount of Rs.2,48,27,198/- is denied on the ground that health insurance for the employees or for personal use. Since it is not related to output services, it is denied. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the credit pertains to travel insurance and employee insurance. Since the travel is carried out exclusively for official purpose and not provided as welfare measure to the employees. It is provided to protect the business interest and appellant is eligible for the credit as claimed. 5. As regarding the claim of Rs.21,57,573/- related to Life Insurance Service, Learned CA submits that the appellant is collecting some amount from employees towards life insurance and discharging appropriate service tax on such recoveries. Hence the company is availing credit only to the extent of output liability towards the same. Since the company is discharging tax on such transactions, it has direct nexus in providing the service. Hence, the appellant has rightly availed the credit on the same. Further, the Order in Appeal is silent on the eligibility of these services and hence, the impugned OIA is not a speaking Order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Corporation of India [2010-TIOL-777-HC-MUM] v. Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2010-TIOL-1761-Tri] vi. Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Chennai-III [ 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 75 (Tri-Chennai)] vii. FIEM Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai III [TS-149CESTAT-2016(CHNY)-ST] [Final Order No. 40554 - / 2016 dated 29-Mar-2016] viii. Willis Processing Services (India) Private Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai-II, [TS-5-CESTAT-2016(Mum)-ST] [Order No. A/85189 to 85205/16/SMB dated -06-Jan-2016]. 7. As regarding refund of Rs.70,88,702/- related to Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service, on the ground in respect of packing, labour, local transportation, freight paid and handling charges, First Appellate Authority rejected the claim on the ground that there is no plea by the appellant on any of them. In this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the Company imports various equipment's like computers, networking equipments, communication equipments, etc which are crucial for providing services. Without these equipments, the provision of service would be hampered. Hence, all such services are activity relating to business and cover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uality of the services rendered by the Company is highest. In all these, in order to ensure that the credentials of the employee's background are adequately verified, background check becomes critical and part of the employee recruitment process. Learned CA also relied on the following decisions and OIO/OIA/Final Order in this regard:- i. OIA No. 98/2013 [Jul 10 to Sept 10] and 99/2013 [Jan'11 to Mar'11] dated 12-Apr-2013 ii. Final Order No. 21397/2016 dated 13-Dec-2016 iii. OIA No. 122-124/2016 LTU [Jul'12 to Mar'13] dated 24Nov-2016 iv. Heartland Bangalore Transcription Services (P) Ltd. v. CST [2011 (21) STR 430 (Tri-Bang)] v. Semco Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (Unit I & II) Vs. CCE Pune-1 [2011-TIOL-965-CESTAT Mum] vi. Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Bangalore [2011 (21) STR 460 (Tri-Bang)] vii. Castrol India Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] viii. Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai- Ii Vs. MMS Maritime (India) Pvt. Ltd [2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri-Mumbai)] 9. As regarding refund of Rs.18,97,671/- related to Commercial Training or Coaching Service for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mcon Technologies India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise Banaglore [2013 (31) S.T.R 441(Tri.- Bang)] iii. Paper Products Ltd. Vs. CCE [2013 (30) STR 310(Tri - Mum)] iv. NTF India [2013 (30) STR 575 (Tri-Del)] v. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2010 (254) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.)] vi. Rotork Control (India) P. Ltd. v. CCE [2010 (20) S.T.R. 684 (Tri.)] vii. CCE, Salem v. ITC Ltd. [2011 (268) E.L.T. 89 (Tri.-Chennai)] viii. CST Bangalore Vs. Yokogawa IA Technologies India P Ltd [2011 (24) STR 465 (Tri-Bang)] ix. HCL Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. Del.)] x. HCL Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCEx, Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. Del.)] xi. O-i-A No.98/2013 [Jul 10 to Sept 10] dated 12-Apr-2013 xii. O-i-A No.99/2013 [Jan'11 to Mar'11] dated 12-Apr-2013 xiii. O-i-A No. JMJ/45/2012, dated 23-Apr-2012 [Apr 08 to Sept'08] xiv. O-i-A No. 81 to 84/2017/LTU dated 02-May-2017 xv. OIO-348R/2017-LTU dated 22-Sep-201 [Apr'14 to Jun'14] xvi. ΟΙΟ-95R/2017-LTU dated 14-Feb-2017....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further, submits that the impugned Order is silent on the eligibility of this service and hence, it is not a speaking Order. 13. As regarding refund of Rs.2,44,399/- related to service of providing accommodation in hotels inns & Guest House, it is also denied on the ground that this service is covered under the exclusion Clause 'C' of the definition 'input service', as these were used for personal consumption and use of their employees. It is further held that the utility of this service clearly pertains to the welfare of their employees, primarily for their personal use. In this regard, Learned CA submits that the said services are essential service requirement for the appellant since the employees will have to visit various place to execute the services or finalize the deals with prospective buyers. Further, the appellant also recruits employees from different locations of India. In such cases the Company provides temporary residential facilities to such employees. In absence of such temporary facility, delivery of service in time may be hampered. Thus this service is also covered under the definition of "input servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services MUM] [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT- vi. XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri-Hyd.)] vii. Mainstay Teleservices Ltd Vs. CST Bangalore [2015 (39) STR 693 (Tri-Bang)] viii. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Jubliant Biosys Ltd [2016 (42) STR 729 (Tri-Bang)] ix. O-i-A No. 81/2013 dated 19-Mar-2013, [Oct'10 to Dec'10] x. O-i-A No. 99/2013 [Jan'11 to Mar'11] dated 12-Apr-2013 xi. ΟΙΟ-103R/2013 dated 15-Oct-2012 [Apr'11-Jun'11] xii. OIO-104R/2013-LTU dated 25-Feb-2013[ Jul'11-Sep'11] xiii. OIO-235R/2016 dated 16-Jun-2016 [Jan'14 to Mar'14] xiv. Final Order No.23114 - 23130/2017 dated 08-Dec-2017 [Apr-08 to Jun-2012] 16. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also draws our attention to details of each appeal and nature of services against each claim which is denied by the Adjudication Authority / Appellate Authorities. As regarding the claim of Rs.97,80,795/- denied against Appeal No. ST/21178/2017 (Rs.77,66,518/-) and ST/21179/2017 (Rs.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....detected the CENVAT Credit utlilzed towards the domestic liability and reversals of Rs.2,90,39,080/- and thereby considerable amount is denied. The correct method of assessing the refund is to deduct only ineligible credit if any from the gross amount of CENVAT Credit availed during the quarter and should not adopt net CENVAT Credit after utilizing domestic liability and reversal. Learned Chartered Accountant further submits that the issue is no more res integra and covered in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 23114-23130/2017 where it is held that:- "After considering the submissions of both parties on the subject, we are of the view that the dispute is with reference to whether the maximum refund allowable is to be calculated on the basis of gross or net CENVAT credit which has been taken by the appellant. The related point is also with reference to the definition of "exports turnover services" from 4/2012 which may also have a bearing on the total refund allowable to the appellant. In view of the above, we set aside the findings of the lower authorities on the subject matter of export turnover ratio and remand the issue back to the original authority for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es cannot be considered as reason of denying the CENVAT Credit to SEZ units. 20. As regarding denial of Rs.2,48,27,198/-, Learned Chartered Accountant relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of CC Vs. Suzuki Motors 2017 (47) STR 85 (Tri - Chan). 21. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order. 22. Heard both sides and perused the records. Since, all these 9 appeals are regarding denial of cenvat credit on various issues the same are taken up simultaneously and a common order is being issued. Appeal No. Disputed amount Amount not appealed Subject matter of appeal (Amount) ST/20242/2017 Rs.83,29,781/- Rs.45,644/- Rs.82,84,137/- ST/20243/2017 Rs.60,93,503/- Rs.1,58,767/- Rs.59,34,736/- ST/20244/2017 Rs.1,50,45,973/- Rs.5,29,004/- Rs.1,45,16,969/- ST/21076/2017 Rs.1,18,87,028/- NIL Rs.1,18,87,028/- ST/21177/2017 Rs.2,34,85,919/- NIL Rs.2,34,85,919/- ST/21178/2017 Rs.2,38,58,713/- NIL Rs.2,38,58,713/- ST/21179/2017 Rs.1,53,22,120/- NIL Rs.1,53,22,120/- ST/21180/2017 Rs.1,59,28,739/- NIL Rs.1,59,28,739/- T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecisions/judgments relied by the appellant, there is no reason or justification to deny the benefit of such cenvat credit to appellant for the impugned period also. 25. As regarding claim of Rs.21,57,573/- related to Life Insurance Service Rs.1,36,05,568/- is related to services falling in other than negative list i.e., Life Insurance & Rent a cab service and Rs.3,64,605/- is related to rent a cab operator services which is claimed as to the extent of service tax paid on employees recovery, we find that the said claim is not against any input services excluded from the definition of input services but it is made since the appellant discharged appropriate service tax on such amount required from the employees. However, to ascertain the fact, the details of the payment collected from the employees and details of the discharge of appropriate service tax on such recoveries are not available on record. If the appellant had made such claim on the amount collected from the employees towards transportation, as rental cab services or against the life insurance and if appellant had discharged appropriate service tax on such recoveries, appellant is eligible for availing credit to that ext....