ST/21210/2014-SM, [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 185/2014 dated 28/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-II (Appeal) ]. Case: Ms. Bhoruka Park Private Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax- I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ST/21210/2014-SM, [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 185/2014 dated 28/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-II (Appeal) ] |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. B.N Gururaj, Advocate and For Respondents: Dr. J. Harish, AR |
| Judges | Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member |
| Issue | Customs Law |
| Judgement Date | May 17, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
S.S Garg, (South Zonal Bench Bangalore)
-
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant by denying the CENVAT credit on various input services.
-
Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the activity of providing renting of immovable property services falling under the taxable service under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. During the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant has availed CENVAT credit on ineligible inputs and input services viz., advertisement, car hiring, computer maintenance for networking, bank charges, telephone, accounting/auditing/finance/legal services manpower supply, vehicle maintenance, building maintenance and insurance totally amounting to Rs.4,77,482/-. On these allegations, a show-cause notice was issued and after due process of law, the original authority has confirmed the demand made in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and Commissioner (A) has also dismissed the appeal of the appellant and hence the present appeal.
-
Heard both the parties and perused the records.
-
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by misconstruing the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to binding judicial precedents. He also submitted that these services on which CENVAT credit has been denied fall in the definition of input services and has been held to be input services by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. In support of his submission, he relied upon following decisions:
i. CST vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd.: 201 (23) STR 444 (Kar.)
ii. CCE vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd.: 2012 (26) STR 514 (Kar.)
iii. APMC vs. CCE: 2013 (30) STR 558...
To continue reading
Request your trial