Nuance Transcription Services India ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Bangalore - ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 20/2011 dated 14/02/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd. No.117-120, II Floor, 13, Green Leaf Layout, 80 Feet Peripheral Road, 4th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 034 Appellant(s) Versus

Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore - Service Tax 1st To 5th Floor, TTMC Building, Above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur Bangalore  560 071 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri. Madhur Harlalka, CA Rishi Madhur & Co.

1st Floor, H.V. M. House, Amarjyothi Layour, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore - 71 For the Appellant

Shri. R. Gurunathan, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 10/08/2015 Date of Decision: 10/08/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21770 / 2015

I have heard both, the appellants as well as the respondents. The main issue here is providing cenvat credit facility to the appellants in case of the inputs used for various branches of the appellants, when those branches were not registered with the Service Tax Department. The learned CA Shri. Madhur Harlalka, mentioned that the appellants made application for registration of all the branches under Service Tax law, however when registration was granted the branches were not registered but they could realize it only later. Another issue is in respect of claiming cenvat credit for the input services like car parking, furniture rentals, DG Set charges, facility maintenance charges and so on used by the appellant for their Bangalore Head Office which have been registered with the Service Tax Department. The learned CA appearing for the appellant points out that the other branches of the appellant located at Coimbatore, Chennai, Hyderabad and Secunderabad have also been got registered with the Service Tax Department later, that is after they realized that the Department did not register those branches though they had initially applied for their registration as well with the Department.

2. Considering the definition of input service given in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and considering the decision, Final Order No. 20735/2015 dated 17.03.2015 of CESTAT, Bangalore in their own case there cannot be any two opinions that the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit for all these input services as well as for the facility of cenvat credit in case of the branches of the appellants which were earlier not found registered with the Service Tax Department. Non-registration, though the appellant pleads that they had made application and department did not do registration, may be by mistake, will not make them disentitled to the facility of cenvat credit for the input services which they have used for their output service; needless to say that all the input services which are subject matter of this case have nexus with the output service(s) of the appellants.

3. The learned DR, Shri. Gurunathan though pleads that certain services viz. car parking, maintenance charges for the facility do not have clear nexus with the output services of the appellants. However as discussed above the learned DR is on weak footing as the definition given in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for the input services clearly says that -

[(l) input service means any service, -

(i) used by a provider of [output service] for providing an output service; or

(ii) used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto 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 upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal;

4. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants in terms of above discussion.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER

iss