Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal challenged Order-in-Original No. 38/2015 (C) (ST) dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry. The appellant, engaged in the hotel business, provided taxable services including Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), Business Support Service (BSS), outdoor catering, mandap keeper and Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services.
The Department alleged that during the period 2008-09 to 2010-11, the appellant wrongly availed and utilized full CENVAT credit on common input services by classifying them as Management Consultancy and Intellectual Property Rights services under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004), although they were allegedly BAS/BSS services, and failed to reverse credit attributable to exempt services. This allegedly resulted in excess CENVAT credit of ₹1,07,29,311 recoverable under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004. It was further alleged that the appellant wrongly claimed abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 for outdoor catering, mandap keeper and GTA services while availing CENVAT credit on common inputs/input services, resulting in short payment of service tax of ₹37,74,164. The Commissioner accepted the appellant’s stand regarding classification and Rule 6(3), but denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST, confirmed the demand of ₹37,74,164 with interest and imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
