ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II
LAWS(CE)-2015-3-104
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 10,2015

Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of S.T., Mumbai -Ii Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.RAVINDRAN,MEMBER (J) - (1.)This appeal is directed against Order -in -Original Nos. 103 -108/ST -II/RS/2014, dated 14 -10 -2014. Relevant facts that raise for consideration are that the appellant herein is providing Information Technology, Software Services, Business Process Outsourcing and Consulting Services. The appellant is having a centralized Service Tax registration in Mumbai for its all business locations across India and has got STP Units, SEZ Units and DTA units. The appellant availed Cenvat credit of input services during the period April, 2006 to September, 2012. The lower authorities are of the view that the said services on which Cenvat credit was availed is not eligible to the appellant as the said services were not used for export of services. Coming to such conclusion, show cause notices were issued to the appellant for the period April, 2006 to September, 2010, two show cause notices got adjudicated and the demands were confirmed with interest and penalties were imposed. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and this Bench vide Final Order Nos. A/1423 -1431/2013/CSTB/C -I, dated 20 -6 -2013 set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with specific directions. Subsequently, new show cause notices were issued for the period October, 2010 to September, 2012 for demanding ineligible Cenvat credit availed by the appellant. All the show cause notices for the period April, 2006 to September, 2012 are adjudicated by the impugned order and demands are confirmed with interest and penalties.
(2.)Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the demands are contested by the appellant on two grounds. Firstly on calculation errors and secondly legal submission on eligibility of disputed input service.
2.1 Learned Counsel would submit that Cenvat credit availed on the following services is in dispute: -

2.2 He would, as regards the dispute on calculation errors, draw our attention to the chart filed with the written submission which is reproduced: -

After referring the above reproduced chart, he would submit that the impugned order has travelled beyond the remand orders in respect of the demands for which Revenue has not filed any appeal in respect of the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on Insurance, Outdoor catering service, Club Membership services. He would submit that having not filed any appeal against an order that allowed credit, the adjudicating authority could not have confirmed the said demands of approximately Rs. 5.02 crores. He would draw our attention to various documents in respect of this submission. It is his further submission that the confirmation of the demands approximately Rs. 1.64 crores is also incorrect as the said amount has been wrongly taken by the adjudicating authority. He would submit that the demand actually is for approximately Rs. 2.23 lakhs while the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand which is in respect of the Cenvat credit availed on various other allowable eligible services.

2.3 As regards the submission on the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on various input services it is his submission that the adjudicating authority has disputed the Cenvat credit availed of the Service Tax paid on transport of passengers by air services, Event Management, Mandap Keeper services, accommodation/guest house services, Scientific & Technical Consultancy services and various other services only on the ground that the appellant had not used these services for providing output services. He would draw our attention to various submissions made by them before the adjudicating authority in respect of these services and would emphasis that all these services are in respect of business activity undertaken by them. He would draw our attention to various documents wherein Service Tax paid on the transport of passengers by air service is co -relatable with the tour undertaken by the employees for attending business meeting with the clients.

2.4 As regards Event Management and Mandap Keeper Services he would draw our attention to various invoices of the service provider which indicates that the services were used for business meetings organized by the appellant in various hotels who discharge Service Tax under the category of Event Managements and Mandap Keeper.

2.5 As regards Cenvat credit paid on Accommodation/Guest House services it is his submission that these services were in respect of rooms/accommodation hired by the appellant for their employees to stay while attending official work. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has not disputed this claim of the appellant in the impugned order.

2.6 As regards various other services which are disputed by the lower authorities, he would submit that the said services in respect of expenses incurred by their employees who were attending to various clients all over the world. Hence, the services are in relation to the business activity of the appellant. It is his submission that as regards the Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on transport of passengers by air service subsequently, the Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax has sanctioned refund of the amount claimed by them has been utilized for export of services and to the best of his knowledge no appeal has been filed by the Revenue.

(3.)Learned A.R. after taking us through various documents would reiterate the findings of the adjudicating authority. He would submit that the submissions made by the learned Counsel on the calculation errors seems to be incorrect inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has in readjudication considered the directions of the Tribunal in an earlier order dated 20 -6 -2013. He would submit that the legal submissions which have been made by the learned Counsel seems to be incorrect as definition of input service has undergone a change and the inclusive definition of the term "input service" now does not have the phrase "activity relating to business, such, as" and hence the services which are not specifically mentioned in the inclusive portion of the definition should be held as inadmissible to Cenvat credit. He would submit that the appellant has not been able to justify the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid on various input services. It is his submission that it is for the appellant -assessee to justify the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit. He would then draw our attention to the Cenvat Credit Rules and submit that the appellant being from an organized sector should have first ascertained the eligibility to avail the Cenvat credit on the Service Tax paid by various service providers.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.