M/S. Hcl Technologies Ltd vs C.C. & C.E. & S.T. Noida
- CitationAppeal No. ST/51191 & 51921/2015-E[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not interfere with an appellate order allowing Cenvat credit on disputed services where the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded specific findings, on the nature, use and business-related participation of those services and by reliance on earlier judicial decisions, in favour of the assessee's entitlement to credit. Where the same service has already been held eligible as an input service in an earlier final order of the Tribunal rendered in the assessee's own case, the question is res integra no longer and the Tribunal will follow that decision in allowing the assessee's appeal on the point of credit for advertisement and sponsorship services.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. NOI/SV Tax/000/APPL-I/92/2014-15 dated 19.01.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I) Meerut]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. ...Appellants(s)
C.C. & C.E. & S.T. Noida
Vs.
C.C. & C.E. & S.T. Noida Respondent(s)
M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd.
Appearance:
Ms. Nupur Maheshwari, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. R. K. Gupta, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/ Decision. 05.08.2015
Final Order No. 54011-54012/2015
Per S K Mohanty:
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.01.2015, both the assessee as well as the Revenue have filed these appeals before this Tribunal.
2. The grievance of the Revenue is that cenvat credit allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the taxable services, namely, Pest control service, renting of equipment for event management service, car parking and renting of canteen space service, visa clearance and issuance of degree, birth/ marriage certificates service, pantry boy service, printing and copying service and service of raising invoices to SEZ are not confirming to the definition of input service. The assessee has challenged the impugned order on the ground that development and sponsorship service is to be considered as input service for the purpose of taking cenvat credit.
3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
4. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed cenvat benefit on the disputed services in favour of the assessee, taking into consideration the nature, use and their participation in the business related activities and also relied on various judgments delivered by the judicial forums. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded specific findings in favour of allowing cenvat benefit to the assessee, I do not feel it appropriate to interfere in the impugned order. Thus, I do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismiss the same.
5. So far as denial of cenvat credit taken by the assessee on advertisement and sponsorship service, I find from the available records that the said service has been used by the assessee for display of hoardings at places like Airports, Express Highways, Flyovers, Article in Newspapers, Magazines, TV Channels etc. Whether such disputed service should be considered as input service for taking cenvat credit, the issue is no more res integra in view of the Final Order No. 52143/2015 dated 10.07.2015 of this Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself, wherein cenvat benefit has been extended to the disputed service. Hence, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and as such, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
6. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)
Neha
3 | Page
ST/51191 & 51921/2015-[SM]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free