Electronics Technology Parks Vs C.C. C.E.& S.T (CESTAT Bangalore)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, disposed of cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Department against the Commissioner’s order concerning service tax demands raised on Electronics Technology Parks, a Government of Kerala company established to develop and manage Electronic Technology Parks in the State. The Commissioner had confirmed service tax demands under the categories of Business Support Service, Renting of Immovable Property Service, Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement Service and Tour Operator Service, disallowed part of the CENVAT credit, imposed interest and penalties, and dropped certain demands. The Department appealed against the dropped demand while the assessee challenged the confirmed demands.
The principal issue before the Tribunal was whether the services provided by the assessee were correctly classifiable as “Support Services of Business or Commerce” or as “Renting of Immovable Property Service.” The assessee contended that it merely leased developed land and buildings and supplied electricity, water, air-conditioning and other facilities incidental to renting. It also submitted that electricity and water constituted sale of goods, that independent entities such as Technopark Business Incubation Centre (TBIC) and Technopark Software Engineering Competency Centre (TSECC) were separate organisations, and that their activities could not alter the character of the assessee’s renting transactions.
After examining the statutory definitions, lease arrangements, invoices and CBEC Circular No. 334/4/2006 dated 28.02.2006, the Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee satisfied the definition of “Renting of Immovable Property Service” under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. It found that electricity, water and air-conditioning charges were separately recovered, were incidental to renting, and that supply of electricity constituted sale of goods. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner’s reasoning treating the services as Business Support Service because of common facilities, TBIC and TSECC was contrary to the statutory definition. Consequently, the reclassification of services and the consequential differential service tax demand were held to be unsustainable.
On the issue of reimbursements received from Kerala State IT Infrastructure Ltd. (KSITIL), the Tribunal noted that KSITIL was an independent Government company. It found that the assessee had merely incurred expenditure temporarily on KSITIL’s behalf until Government funds were released and was subsequently reimbursed. Since no service was provided to KSITIL for consideration, the Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses was not liable to service tax and set aside the corresponding demand.
Regarding inclusion of notional interest on refundable security deposits, the Tribunal observed that the deposits served as security against defaults in rent, damage to property and other liabilities, were refundable subject to adjustments, and had no nexus with lease rentals. Finding no evidence that such deposits resulted in undervaluation of taxable services, it held that notional interest could not be included in the value of taxable services and decided the issue against the Revenue.
The Tribunal also held that sale of space or time for advertisement constituted an independently taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzzm) and could not be taxed under Business Support Service. Accordingly, the demand raised under the latter category was held unsustainable.
With respect to the bus service operated between Technopark and Kariyavattom, the Tribunal found that the assessee had merely arranged public transport for a nominal charge while M/s Cosmos Travels, which possessed the necessary permits, actually provided the taxable service, collected service tax and remitted it. Therefore, the assessee was held not liable for service tax under the category of Tour Operator Service.
On denial of CENVAT credit, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had rejected credit partly on the ground that certain invoices lacked prescribed particulars and partly because the credit related to construction services. Since the assessee had produced declarations from vendors and supporting documents which had not been properly verified, the Tribunal remanded this issue to the original authority for verification of documents, declarations and supporting evidence, directing the authority to pass a reasoned order thereafter on the assessee’s entitlement to CENVAT credit.
The Tribunal also considered the plea on limitation. It observed that the assessee had been paying service tax on renting of immovable property, had been regularly corresponding with the Department, had responded to audits and summons, and had furnished information sought by the authorities. Referring to the documented correspondence and audits, it held that invocation of the extended period of limitation alleging suppression of facts or intent to evade tax was not sustainable.
Since the substantive service tax demands were held unsustainable, the Tribunal held that the consequential liability to interest did not survive. It further held that penalties were not imposable as there was no intention to evade payment of service tax.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the demands relating to Business Support Service, reimbursements received from KSITIL, notional interest on refundable security deposits, sale of space or time for advertisement and tour operator service. It remanded only the issue of CENVAT credit to the original authority for verification and fresh adjudication. The assessee’s appeal was partly allowed to that extent, while the Department’s appeal was dismissed.
Cases Discussed
- Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Ticel Bio Park Ltd., [2018-TIOL-2195-CESTAT-MAD]
• Plaza Maintenance and Service Vs. CCE, [2019(26) GSTL J170(SC)]
• Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Surat, [2019(25) GSTL 62 (Tri. Mum.)]
• CCE, Jaipur Vs. Air Liquide North India Ltd. (High Court), [2019(27) GSTL 194 (Raj.)]
• Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, [2019(367) ELT A255(SC)]
• Ashiana Maintenance Services LLP Vs. CCE, [2019(24) GSTL 47 (Tri. Del.)]
• Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Others Vs. CCE&ST, Bolpur, [2019-TIOL-3177-CESTAT-KOL]
• UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Ltd. (SC), [2018(10) GSTL 401 (SC)]
• CCE Vs. Singh Transporters, [2018(13) GSTL J40 (SC)]
• Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Ticel Bio Park Ltd., [2018-TIOL-2195-CESTAT-MAD]
• SB Developers Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi, [2018-TIOL-1866-CESTAT-DEL]
• Air Liquide North India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur, [2017(4) GSTL 230 (Tri. Del.)]
• Anandram Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, [2017(6) GSTL 75 (Tri. Chennai)]
• Murali Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune, [2015(37) STR 618 (Tri. Mumba)]
• Samir Rajendra Shah Vs. CCE, Kolhapur, [2015(37) STR 154 (Tri. Mum)]
• Radius Water Ltd. Vs. CCE, [2015(37) STR 409 (Tri. Del.)]
• CST Vs. Vijay Television (P) Ltd., [2015-TIOL-874-HC-MAD-ST]
• Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JK Investor (Bombay) Ltd., [248 ITR 723 (Bom)]
• Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur, [2013(288) ELT 161 (SC)]
• ICC Realty India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III, [2013(32) STR 427 (Tri. Mum.)]
• Chitrali Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, [2013-TIOL-236-CESTAT-MUM]
• Mundra Port & SEZ Ltd., [2012(27) STR 171 (Tri. Mum.)]
• Gangadhar Bulk Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur, [2012(27) STR 258 (Tri. Mum.)]
• Golf Links Embassy Business Park Vs. CST, Bangalore, [(2012) 25 taxmann.com 533 (Bang-CESTAT)]
• BSNL Vs. CST Bangalore, [2009(9) STR 499 (Tri. Bang.)]
• CCE Vs. Tata Tech, [2008(11) STR 449 (SC)]
• State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation, [2002 AIR SCN 1956]
• KN Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex., Kanpur, [2002(38) GSTL 60 (Tri. All.)]
• CCE, Mumbai-III Vs. ISPL Industries Ltd., [2003(154) ELT 3 (SC)]
• CCE, Baroda Vs. Cotspun Ltd., [1999(113) ELT 353 (SC)]
• Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. CCE, Madras, [1994(74) ELT 9 (SC)]
• Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. CCE, [1991(52) ELT 618 (T)]
• CST(MP) Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, [1969(1) SCC 200]
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
This order will dispose of two appeals, one filed by the assessee bearing number ST/26639/2013 and other appeal filed by the Department bearing number ST/27143/2013 against the impugned order dt. 27/02/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax against the assessee which is under challenge in appeal ST/26639/2013 and has dropped some demand for which Department has filed the appeal.
2. First of all, the appeal filed by the assessee is taken up. Vide the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the following demands of Service tax along with interest on the assessee:-
i. Rs 11,23,38,130 (Rupee One Crore Twenty three Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Only) for the period 5/06 to 3/11, under the category of Business Support Service;
ii. Rs 11, 07, 24,133 (Rupees eleven Crores Seven Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Three Only), for the period 6/07 to 3/11, under Renting of immovable property service;
iii. Rs 19,08,987 (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Seven Only), while dropping remaining amount of Rs.4,50,289, for the period 4/08 to 3/11 and Rs.3,87,14,111 (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Seven Lakhs Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Eleven Only), for the period from 5/06 to 3/11, under Business Support Service;
iv. Rs. 31,345 (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred and forty Five only), for the period from 5/06 to 3/08, under the category of Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement Service;
v. Rs. 2, 28,191/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Ninety one only), for the period from 4/06 to 3/11, under the category of Tour Operator Service.
2.1. learned Commissioner has disallowed and demanded Cenvat Credit of Rs. 66,74,180/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand One Hundred and Eighty only) while allowing an amount of Rs.20,45,706/.
2.2. Learned Commissioner has imposed penalty equivalent to the tax confirmed as above and under section 78 of the Act and ordered that the assessee shall be eligible for reduced penalty provided vide 2nd proviso to Section 78(1) subject to compliance thereof. He also imposed a penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- for contravening the provisions of Section 70 of Finance Act, 1994.
2.3. He dropped further proceedings in respect of an amount of Rs.13, 75, 391.
3.1. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant/assessee is the first Electronic Software Technology Park promoted and funded by the Government of Kerala and is a State Government Company. The objective of the Park is to plan, establish and manage Electronic Technology Parks(ETP, for short) in Kerala so as to create the necessary infrastructure and environment required for setting up high technology electronic products manufacturing units, R&D and training establishments, encourage local entrepreneurship, attract NRIs and companies to set up manufacturing units etc. To fulfil these objectives, the assessee had acquired land and developed ETP by constructing buildings, roads, continuous power and water supply, security service, communication, housekeeping, medical attention including ambulance service etc. A number of services are provided by independent vendors like restaurants, clubs, guest house, etc. in the campus. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram issued a show-cause notice dt. 07/10/2011 alleging that the preliminary examination of the nature of services provided by the assessee to the units functioning in their campus were in the nature of composite services and not ‘renting of immovable property’ service as classified by the assessee and service tax paid thereon. The show-cause notice further alleged that the service was classifiable under ‘Support Services of Business or Commerce” as defined in Section 65(104C) read with Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 taxable from 01/05/2006. Show-cause notice proposed to include various charges for supply of water, electricity, diesel generator charges, air-conditioning charges, car park charges etc. and concluded that there was short payment of service tax to the extent of Rs.10,14,58,189/- under the proposed re-classification. The show-cause notice proposed to demand service tax on the following:-
i. Differential Service Tax on re-classification under the category of “Support Services of Business or Commerce” by including the Rent/lease Charges for building/rent, car Parking charges, Campus Maintenance Charges, Generator Charges, Electricity Charges, Water charges, Air-conditioning charges.
ii. Commitment Charges representing forfeiture of deposit made by Companies for lease of land for construction of their own buildings for use for commercial purposes, but agreements terminated due to breach of condition of non-payment of lease amount;
iii. Amount reimbursed by KSITIL, a Government of Kerala funded company;
iv. Notional Interest on the refundable deposits made by the Lessees.;
v. Sale of Space for Advertisement by clients;
vi. Transportation Service provided by M/s cosmos for plying buses for Pickup and Drop facility to the passengers under the category of Tour Operator Service.
vii. Disallowance and demand of CENVAT Credit on Construction Service, Architect Service used for construction of building (immovable property) which is ineligible; the ST Registration Number in the Bills/Invoices were not available; Bills addressed to their employees; duplication of credit due to simultaneous availment of credit on original and carbon copy of Bills; photocopy of the Bills; etc-.
3.2. The assessee filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice justifying the services rendered by them as ‘Renting of Immovable Property’ as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 and liable to pay service tax from 01.06.2007. After following the due process, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand under various categories as cited supra and dropped the demand under certain categories, for which the Department is also in appeal.
4.1. Learned counsel made his submissions for each issue separately. Now we will take up the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee under each issue.
4.2. Issue No.1: Demand of service tax under “Support Services of Business or Commerce” Learned counsel submitted that the demand of service tax under “Support Services of Business or Commerce” is not sustainable in law and the Commissioner has misconstrued the meaning and scope of the service covered under the category of Business Support Services. He further submitted that assessee has indisputably provided built-up space in the buildings or modules for rent or lease to the clients for their business or commerce. The Lessees are required to undertake necessary additions, alterations, or modification, certain finishing works and interiors to facilitate occupation of the premises. Certain companies were also provided with long term lease of land to enable them to undertake construction of their own buildings. The supply of electricity and water is incidental to renting of premises and being goods are transactions of ‘sale of goods’. The charges for supply of standby power through DG set are also share of expenditure on the cost of diesel and other consumables used for generation and supply of electricity. The learned counsel then referred to the definition of ‘Renting of Immovable Property’ as provided in Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act and submitted that the Commissioner has held in para 13(iii) that the services rendered by the assessee is something more than renting and it is also held in para 13(iv) that activities like Technopark Business Incubation Center (TBIC), Technopark Software Engineering Competency Centre (TSECC), etc. are such which clearly distinguish from mere renting and in para 13(v), that the lessees are not merely acquiring office space, but are buying into an environment with common facilities, power supply, common area, common maintenance and other common amenities and taking the whole ambit of transactions, as per the Commissioner, the service is more appropriately classifiable under ‘Business Support Service’ rather than renting of immovable property as claimed by the assessee. He further submitted that the show-cause notice proposes to include price/value of various elements but Commissioner in para 14(ii) held that as regards rent and building maintenance, there is no dispute but the dispute pertains to only air-conditioning charges, generator charges, water charges and electricity charges. To counter the findings recorded in the impugned order, the learned counsel submitted that the supply of electricity, water and air-conditioning are obligatory and incidental for use of the rented or leased premises. The sale of water and electricity is transaction of sale of goods. He further submitted that the assessee is not charging any service tax on sale of water, electricity, air-conditioning and supply of electricity by operating DG sets. These charges are collected separately and in order to support this submission, the learned counsel has enclosed copies of various invoices. He also submitted that AC charges (consumed) are apportioned as per area occupied by each tenant or lessee. The expenses are recovered under separate invoices. This fact can be confirmed from the clauses of Lease Deed , extracted in the show-cause notice itself wherein it is clearly stated that lessee’s usage of AC as measured by building management system shall be the basis for determining AC charges. The value of the goods used for operation of AC and supply of conditioned air is transaction of sale of conditioned air and exempt under Notification No.12/2003-ST dt. 20.06.2003. He also submitted that the diesel generator charges are nothing but the apportionment of the price of electricity generated and sold to the tenants or lessees. The learned counsel further submitted that the Apex Court and the Tribunal in plethora of judgments had held that supply of electricity amounts to sale of goods. The decisions cited are as follows:-
i. CST(MP) Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board [1969(1) SCC 200]
ii. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation [2002 AIR SCN 1956]
iii. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. CCE [1991(52) ELT 618 (T)]
iv. ICC Realty India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2013(32) STR 427 (Tri. Mum.)]
v. Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Surat [2019(25) GSTL 62 (Tri. Mum.)]
vi. Plaza Maintenance and Service Vs. CCE [2019(26) GSTL J170(SC)]
vii. SB Developers Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi [2018-TIOL-1866-CESTAT-DEL]
viii. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Ticel Bio Park Ltd. [2018-TIOL-2195-CESTAT-MAD]
ix. Anandram Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST [2017(6) GSTL 75 (Tri. Chennai)]
x. Chitrali Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2013-TIOL-236-CESTAT-MUM]
xi. Golf Links Embassy Business Park Vs. CST, Bangalore [(2012) 25 com 533 (Bang-CESTAT)]
xii. Radius Water Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(37) STR 409 (Tri. Del.)]
He further submitted that the findings recorded by the Commissioner in Para 13(iv) and 13(v) and the reasoning given by the Commissioner is completely flawed, contrary to law and beyond the plain language of the statutory definition of ‘renting of immovable property’. Rental or lease rental of the building takes into consideration the common facilities and the maintenance of the buildings. He further submitted that the Commissioner has accepted the fact that the assessee is a licensed distributor of electricity and in Para 14(iv) of the impugned order, he has allowed retrospective exemption under Notification No.45/2010-ST for distribution of electricity up to 21/06/2010 and further prospective exemption w.e.f. 22.06.2010 is allowed under Notification No.45/2010-ST. Learned counsel also submitted that the Technopark Business Incubation Center (TBIC) is a different entity registered as a society and eligible for exemption from service tax under notification No.09/2007-ST. Similarly Technopark Software Engineering Competency Centre (TSECC) is also different entity established for the purpose of facilitating software development by their clients. The transactions by those entities with the concerned units are independent of the lease or renting of premises by the appellant. The presence of these independent entities in the Technopark pursuing their own objectives does not change or alter the nature of transactions of renting or leasing of land and / or building by assessee for setting up manufacturing units or R&D centre by the industries or businesses. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant has not provided any infrastructure support to any business or the lessees of the buildings. He then referred to the definition of Support Services of Business or Commerce as defined in Section 65(104c) read with definition of ‘Taxable Service’ under Section 65(105)(zzzq) and submitted that the definition of infrastructure support services as per the explanation is clear and unambiguous. It comprises of providing office along with utilities, lounge, reception, secretarial service, internet, telecom facilities, pantry and security. The learned counsel also referred to the CBEC Circular No.334/4/2006 dt. 28/02/2006 clarifying the scope and extent of business support services. Learned counsel also submitted that the assessee/appellant has not provided any services to manage the business of the lessees and the lease or renting of buildings for setting up manufacturing units or R&D centre, etc. and collection of rentals are covered under ‘renting of immovable property’ from 01.06.2007 and accordingly paid the service tax which is not in dispute. In order to prove that the services rendered by the assessee do not fall in the category of Business Support Service, the learned counsel relied upon few decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court wherein it has been clarified the scope of Business Support Services. Learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:-
i. CST(MP) Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board [1969(1) SCC 200]
ii. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation [2002 AIR SCN 1956]
iii. ICC Realty India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2013(32) STR 427 (Tri. Mum.)]
iv. Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Surat [2019(25) GSTL 62 (Tri. Mum.)]
v. Anandram Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST [2017(6) GSTL 75 (Tri. Chennai)]
vi. Radius Water Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(37) STR 409 (Tri. Del.)]
vii. Mundra Port & SEZ Ltd. [2012(27) STR 171 (Tri. Mum.)]
viii. Air Liquide North India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2017(4) GSTL 230 (Tri. Del.)]
ix. CCE Vs. Tata Tech [2008(11) STR 449 (SC)]
x. UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Ltd. [2018(10) GSTL 401 (SC)]
4.3. Issue No.2: Whether amount received from Kerala State IT Infrastructure Ltd. (KSITIL) is towards rendering “Business Support Service”?
Learned counsel submitted that KSITIL is a 100% State Government owned company acting as an apex body for developing IT infrastructure in the state of Kerala under whose supervision assessee/appellant’s Technopark is established. He further submitted that as per the arrangements between the assessee and the KSITIL , Technopark would incur the expenses initially and later the entire amount would be reimbursed by the KSITIL. This was only an interim arrangement till the funds are released by the state government to KSITIL. The amount initially spent was later reimbursed by the KSITIL and the copy of Technopark ledger for the period 2008-2013 clearly shows all the expenses incurred on account of KSITIL which was reimbursed subsequently. He further submitted that the Commissioner himself has dropped the demand of service tax of Rs.4,50,289/- by observing that two are independent companies promoted by the State Government. He further submitted that the amount spent initially by the assessee Technopark and later reimbursed by KSITIL is not a consideration for any taxable service because the appellant has not provided any service to KSITIL for a consideration. The demand of service tax of Rs.19,08,987/- is without any basis and is liable to be set aside.
4.4. Issue No.3: Whether notional interest on refundable deposits can be included in the value of taxable supply for levy of service tax?
Learned counsel submitted that rental or lease rent are fixed by the project implementation board along with security deposits and lease rental was the consideration for renting of the premises and the security deposit was in the nature of security against default in payment of lease rental, damage to buildings, fitting, fixtures etc. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no nexus between the renting of premises, the prescribed lease rental and the security deposit. The security deposit amount is refunded on the termination of the lease after adjusting for any recoveries towards unpaid amounts. As per the learned counsel, the security deposit is not a consideration or an additional consideration for renting or leasing of the building/premises and the show-cause notice has wrongly proposed demand of service tax on notional interest accrued on refundable security deposit amounts. He further submitted that as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the value of service is the amount charged for providing such service and the said issue stands settled by the Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Ltd. [2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC)]. He also submitted that there is no finding that notional interest on refundable deposit has resulted in undervaluation of the service of renting of immovable property and there is no evidence of nexus between the deposit amount and the rental. Learned counsel also relied upon few decisions wherein it has been held that inclusion of notional interest on refundable security deposit is contrary to settled law. He relied upon the following decisions:-
i. Murali Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [2015(37) STR 618 (Tri. Mumba)]
ii. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs. CCT, Bangalore [2020(40) GSTL 33 (Tri. Bang.)]
iii. Samir Rajendra Shah Vs. CCE, Kolhapur [2015(37) STR 154 (Tri. Mum]
iv. Ashiana Maintenance Services LLP Vs. CCE [2019(24) GSTL 47 (Tri. Del.)]
v. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JK Investor (Bombay) Ltd. [248 ITR 723 (Bom)]
vi. CCE, Mumbai-III Vs. ISPL Industries Ltd. [2003(154) ELT 3 (SC)]
4.5. Issue No.4: Taxability on sale of space or time for advertisement (May 2006 to March 2008).
Learned counsel submitted that the sale of space or time for advertisement is independently classifiable as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 and not under business support service as confirmed by the learned Commissioner.He further submitted that the demand of service tax under wrong classification of service is not sustainable in law.
4.6. Issue No.5: Whether bus service plying between Technoparki and Kariyavattom is liable to service tax as “Tour Operator Service” by appellant?.
Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had arranged operation of public transportation system for a nominal charge and the facility is open to members of public and was provided by M/s. Cosmos Travels who were operating the vehicles on contract. He further submitted that M/s. Cosmos Travels have the permit for operation of the contract carriage or tourist vehicle, which is a taxable service and the same is provided by them and they have collected the service tax and remitted the same and the appellant not being a service provider is not liable to pay service tax.
4.7. Issue No.6: Denial of CENVAT credit.
The learned counsel submitted that the learned Commissioner has denied the Cenvat credit on various input services relating to construction and other input services on the ground that the invoices produced by the appellant are not containing requisite details including service tax registration number and the element of service tax by the service provider etc. He further submitted that the assessee/appellant have produced sufficient documents and the copy of invoices issued by the service providers on which the assessee/appellant has taken the Cenvat credit but those invoices were not examined and verified by the authorities below and therefore this issue needs to be remanded back for the purpose of verification.
4.8. Issue No.7: Demand is barred by limitation.
The learned counsel submitted that substantial demand is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the show-cause notice was issued on 07.10.2011 proposing to demand service tax for the period from May 2006 to March 2011. He further submitted that the Commissioner has recorded in Para 21 of the impugned order that the assessee has delayed information and contravened provisions of law which is nothing but suppression of facts. Learned counsel further submitted that before issuance of present show-cause notice dt. 07.10.2011, previously audits were conducted by the Department on various occasions and the Department wanted to classify the services of the appellant under Business Support Services but the same was resisted by the appellant vide their letter dt. 26/02/2009 and the details of the said correspondence have been recorded in para 21 & 22 of the impugned order which according to the learned counsel clearly shows that the appellant being a State Government of Kerala undertaking has not concealed any information from the Department and the Department was aware of the activities of the appellant from 2007 onwards but did not issue the show-cause notice earlier. He further submitted that the appellant has been discharging service tax on renting of immovable property, maintenance charges etc. and the Department has sought to change the classification and include various services provided by other independent entities in the value of service. The dispute is purely of interpretation and relating to classification of service and there is no suppression of facts or contravention of the Finance Act, 1994 with intention to evade payment of service tax. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:-
i. CCE Vs. Singh Transporters [2018(13) GSTL J40 (SC)]
ii. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE [2019(367) ELT A255(SC)]
iii. CCE, Baroda Vs. Cotspun Ltd. [1999(113) ELT 353 (SC)]
iv. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs. CCT, Bangalore [2020(40) GSTL 33 (Tri. Bang.)]
v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. CCE, Madras [1994(74) ELT 9 (SC);
vi. BSNL Vs. CST Bangalore [2009(9) STR 499 (Tri. Bang.)]
vii. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2013(288) ELT 161 (SC)]
viii. Gangadhar Bulk Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2012(27) STR 258 (Tri. Mum.)]
ix. CST Vs. Vijay Television (P) Ltd. [2015-TIOL-874-HC-MAD-ST]
4.9. Issue No.8: Demand of interest and penalties.
Learned counsel submitted that when the demand itself is not sustainable, there is no question of demanding interest. Further as far as penalties are concerned, the learned counsel submitted that once the assessee/appellant has paid the service tax under the correct category of renting of immovable property, then the penalties cannot be imposed on the belief that appellant is rendering different service. He further submitted that there was confusion regarding correct interpretation of service and classification hence no penalty is imposable under Section 76 for interpretational differences; as far as penalty under Section 76 and 78 are concerned, both cannot be imposed together as they are mutually exclusive.
4.10. As far as Department’s appeal is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the Department has challenged the impugned order dropping the demand of service tax of Rs.13,75,391/- on forfeiture of commitment charged deducted by the assessee. Learned counsel further submitted that the commitment charges are forfeited by the assessee only when the allottee failed to occupy the property/building allotted for occupation. Forfeiture was also certain percentage of deposit due to breach of contract by reason of not occupying the premises and paying the lease rental. The forfeiture of the deposit amount was for breach of contract resulting in cancellation of contract and not in pursuance of any contract to provide any service. He further submitted that forfeiture or collection of commitment charges was the policy of the Project Implementation Board and he then referred to the Minutes of 72nd Meeting of the Technopark held on 05.07.2007, wherein forfeiture of commitment charges was decided and the decision of the Board was conveyed to the allottee. The stand of the Department is that the amounts were received as forfeiture and are for services whereas the stand of the assessee is that the amount forfeited is penal in nature and not for renting of immovable property. Since there is non-performance by the allottee for which cancellation fee was charged, there was no service rendered. Learned counsel also referred to Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act, 1972 which provides for compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. He further submitted that the amount forfeited is not a consideration as the effect of breach of contract cannot be treated as provision of service. Since the contract is cancelled, there is no service per se rendered in terms of Section 65B(44) and Section 65E(e). In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:-
i. Lemon Tree Hotel Vs. CC [2020(34) GSTL 220 (Tri. Del.)]
ii. KN Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST &C.Ex., Kanpur [2002(38) GSTL 60 (Tri. All.)]
iii. Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Others Vs. CCE&ST, Bolpur [2019-TIOL-3177-CESTAT-KOL]
iv. CST Vs. Repco Home Finance Ltd. [2020-TIOL-1039-CESTAT-MAD-LB]
5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and as far as Department’s appeal is concerned, he submitted that the learned Commissioner has wrongly dropped the demand of service tax of Rs.13,75,391/- on forfeiture of maintenance charged deducted by the assessee which has been contested by the assessee.
6.1. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. As per the assessee, they have rendered renting of immovable property service which is defined in Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act taxable from 01.06.2007, whereas as per the Department, the assessee has rendered Support Services of Business and Commerce as defined under Section 65(104c) read with Section 65(105)(zzzq) taxable from 01.05.2006. Before we examine the correct classification of the service rendered by the assessee, it would be appropriate to examine the definition of renting of immovable property as well as support service of business or commerce. Definition of both services are reproduced herein below:-
Section 65(105)(zzzz) renting of immovable property service means service provided to any person, by any other person, by renting of immovable property or any other service in relation to such renting for use in the course of or, for furtherance of business or commerce.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, “immovable property” includes—
i. building and part of a building, and the land appurtenant thereto;
ii. land incidental to the use of such building or part of a building;
iii. the common or shared areas and facilities relating thereto; and
iv. in case of a building located in a complex or an industrial estate, all common areas and facilities relating thereto, within such complex or estate;
v. vacant land, given on lease or license for construction of building or temporary structure at a later stage to be used for furtherance of business or commerce; but does not include-
a. vacant land solely used for agriculture, aquaculture, farming, forestry, animal husbandry, mining purposes;
b. vacant land, whether or not having facilities clearly incidental to the use of such vacant land;
c. land used for educational, sports, circus, entertainment and parking purposes; and
d. building used solely for residential purposes and buildings used for the purposes of accommodation, including hotels, hostels, boarding houses, holiday accommodation, tents, camping facilities.
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, an immovable property partly for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce and partly for residential or any other purposes shall be deemed to be immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce;
Section 65(104c) “support services of business or commerce” means services provided in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfilment services, information and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting and processing of transactions, Operational or administrative assistance in any manner], formulation of customer service and pricing policies, infrastructural support services and other transaction processing.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, the expression “infrastructural support services” includes providing office along with office utilities, lounge, reception with competent personnel to handle messages, secretarial services, internet and telecom facilities, pantry and security;
(zzzq) to any person, by any other person, in relation to support services of business or commerce, in any manner;
It is also relevant to reproduce CBEC(TRU) circular No.334/4/2006 dt. 28/02/2006 wherein the scope of business support service has been clarified:-
3.13. Business Support Services : Business entities outsource a number of services for use in business or commerce. These services include transaction processing, routine administration or accountancy, customer relationship management and tele-marketing. There are also business entities which provide infrastructural support such as providing instant offices along with secretarial assistance known as “Business Centre Services”. It is proposed to tax all such outsourced services. If these services are provided on behalf of a person, they are already taxed under Business Auxiliary Service. Definition of support services of business or commerce gives indicative list of outsourced services.
6.2. Further we find that assessee/appellant is a State Government company and has built up spaces in the buildings or modules for rent or lease to their clients for their business or commerce. The lessees are required to undertake necessary alterations or modifications and certain finishing work and interiors to facilitate occupation of premises. We also find that supply of electricity and water is incidental to renting of premises. Further we find that supply of electricity, water and air-conditioning are obligatory and incidental for use of the rented or leased premises. The sale of water and electricity is a transaction of sale of goods and the assessee is not charging any service tax on the sale of water, electricity, air-conditioning and supply of electricity by operating DG sets. The charges are collected separately. We have also examined the sample invoices annexed by the assessee for collection of different charges relating to water, air conditioning and electricity operating DG sets. These charges are apportioned as per the area occupied by each tenant or lessee and are charged under separate invoices. We also find that these clauses are mentioned in the Lease Deed annexed with the show-cause notice wherein it is clearly stated that lessee’s usage of AC as measured by Building Measurement Management System shall be the basis for determining the AC charges. As per the Department, assessee has rendered composite services whereas as per the assessee, they have rendered only ‘Renting of Immovable Property Service’. Further as per the clause (1) of Section 65A which states that “a taxable service would be classified in the category which gives the most specific description of the service provided” is applicable in the case of the assessee. Further we find that the Tribunal as well as the Apex Court has held that supply of electricity amounts to sale of goods. Further in the case of ICC Realty India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, the Tribunal has held that electricity is goods chargeable to duty under Central Excise Tariff as well as under the Maharastra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Therefore supply of electricity to tenants amounts to sale of goods and not supply of service. Further the Notification No.12/2003-ST dt. 20/06/2003 exempt from service tax, any value of goods supplied by service provider to service recipient. By following the ratio of the decisions, the Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Golf Links Embassy Business Park cited supra has held in favour of the assessee. Further we find that the finding of the Commissioner in Para 13(iv) that the activities like TBIC, TSECC etc. clearly distinguished the service from mere renting and as per the learned Commissioner, the more specific service rendered by the appellant is Business Support Service. The reasoning adopted by the Commissioner is completely misplaced and contrary to law and beyond the plain language of the statutory definition of ‘Renting of Immovable Property’. The rental or lease rental of the building takes into consideration the common facilities and the maintenance of the building and the supply of electricity and water is the transaction of sale of goods and their value cannot be included in the value of the service. Further we find that TBIC is a different entity registered as a society and eligible for exemption from service tax under Notification No.9/2007 and similarly TSECC has been established for the purpose of facilitating software development of their clients and the transaction of these entities with the concerned units are independent of the lease/rent of premises by the assessee/appellant. The presence of these independent entities in the Technopark pursuing their own objectives does not change or alter the nature of transactions of renting of immovable property by the appellant. further we find that the services rendered by the assessee clearly satisfy the requirement of definition of ‘Renting of Immovable Property Service’ as provided under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 and taxable from 01.06.2007. Further we see from the circular issued by the CBEC in para 3.3, it is clarified as to what is the scope of support service of business or commerce. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Mundra Port & Special Economic zone Ltd. cited supra wherein the Tribunal has held that in order to bring the appellant under the category of support services of business and commerce, it is necessary to show that they are providing services relatable to business of the client. Further the Tribunal in the case of Air Liquide North India Ltd. cited supra, held in Para 10 that infrastructural facilities covered under the Business Support Service are mainly administrative and office related support. The type of activities like putting up and managing gas storage facility in industrial unit are not fitting into overall scope of the infrastructural support service as contemplated by the inclusive definition given in the explanation. This decision of the Tribunal has been approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan as reported in CCE, Jaipur Vs. Air Liquide North India Ltd. [2019(27) GSTL 194 (Raj.)]. Further we find that the reliance by the Department on Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 to consider such expenses or costs as consideration and to be included in the value of service is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Ltd. cited supra. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:-
24. In this hue, the expression ‘such’ occurring in Section 67 of the Act assumes importance. In other words, valuation of taxable services for charging service tax, the authorities are to find what is the gross amount charged for providing ‘such’ taxable services. As a fortiori, any other amount which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such ‘taxable service’. That according to us is the plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 1, 2006) or after its amendment, with effect from, May 1, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasised that Rule 5 of the Rules went much beyond the mandate of Section 67. We, therefore, find that High Court was right in interpreting Sections 66 and 67 to say that in the valuation of taxable service, the value of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider ‘for such service’ and the valuation of tax service cannot be anything more or less than the consideration paid as quid pro qua for rendering such a service.
Therefore in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant and the documentary evidences on record, we are of the considered view that the services rendered by the appellant fall under the category of ‘Renting of Immovable Property service’ and the applicable services tax on such rental or lease charges has been correctly paid. The impugned order for reclassification of service and demand of differential service tax on transaction of sale of goods and other independent transactions is contrary to facts and law and hence unsustainable.
6.3. Coming to issue No.2, whether the amount received from KSITIL is towards Business Support Service or not, we find that KSITIL is a 100% State Government undertaking, acting as an apex body for developing infrastructure in the State of Kerala under whose supervision the assessee/appellant has been established. Since KSITIL was a newly promoted company, the budgetary allocation and release of funds by the State Government was delayed and therefore in the meantime, the assessee incurred expenses which were entirely reversed by KSITIL when the State Government released funds to KSITIL. Further we find that the finding of the learned Commissioner that KSITIL is an associated enterprise is not tenable in law because KSITIL is an independent company. Appellant has not provided any service to KSITIL for consideration. In the absence of any service, the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the appellant cannot be subjected to levy of service tax. Therefore the demand of service tax of Rs.19,08,987/- is without any basis.
6.4. Coming to issue No.3, whether notional interest on refundable deposits can be included in the value of taxable supply for levy of service tax, we find that lease rental was the consideration for renting of premises and the security deposit was in the nature of security against default in payment of lease rental, damage to building, fitting, fixtures etc. We do not find any nexus between renting of premises, the prescribed lease rental and the security deposit. In fact, security deposit amount is refunded on termination of lease after adjusting any recovery towards any unpaid amounts. More over security deposit is not a consideration or additional consideration for renting or leasing of the premises. There is no finding that the notional interest on refundable deposit has resulted in undervaluation of service of renting of immovable property and further there is no evidence of nexus between the two. This issue of inclusion of notional interest on refundable security deposit is settled issue now. We find that in the case of Murli Realtors Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, it was observed by the Tribunal that security deposit is taken for a different purpose altogether. It is to provide for a security in case of default in rent by the lessee or default in payment of utility charges or for damages if any caused to the leased property. Thus the security deposits serves a different purpose altogether and it is not a consideration for leasing of the property. Same ratio was followed in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board cited supra. Honb’ble High Court of Bombay has held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. [248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] that notional interest on security deposits should not be considered for the purpose of inclusion in actual rent. By following the ratios of the various decisions cited supra, we hold that notional interest on refundable deposit cannot be included in the value of taxable service for the purpose of levy of service tax and this issue is decided against the Revenue.
6.5.The next issue is related to taxability of sale of space or time for advertisement. The Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax for the period from May 2006 to March 2007 under the category of Business Support Service whereas we find that sale of space or time for advertisement is classifiable independently as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 and not under Business Support Service as confirmed by the Commissioner. Hence the demand of service tax under wrong classification of service is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we decide this issue also in favour of the assessee.
6.6. Regarding the issue whether bus service plying between the Technopark and Kariyavattom is liable to service tax under tour operator service or not, we find that the appellant has only arranged operation of public transport system for a nominal charge and it is M/s. Cosmos Travels who has permit for operation of the contract carriage or tourist vehicle and the taxable service is provided by them. From the various documents on record, we have seen that M/s. Cosmos Travels have collected service tax and remitted the same and the assessee not being service provider is not liable to pay service tax.
6.7. As far as denial of Cenvat credit on various input services is concerned, we find that the Commissioner has denied the credit partly on the ground that the credit relates to construction service for the period prior to 01.04.2011. Further, the cenvat credit has been denied on the ground that there is a defect in credit claiming document as service tax registration was not printed and the same was written in hand. In this regard, we find that the assessee has submitted declarations from respective vendors confirming remittances of service tax by them under respective registration numbers and has also cited various decisions to buttress their argument that the services fall in the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. But the learned Commissioner has not examined the documents submitted by the assessee and the various decisions relied upon by them in support of the fact that the impugned services fall in the definition of input service. Therefore we are of the considered view that for this issue, the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority for the purpose of verification of various documents, declarations and the letters issued by the vendors who have paid the service tax for various impugned services. Therefore, for the purpose of cenvat credit, we remand the matter to the original authority to verify the claim of the appellant and then decide the issue of cenvat credit entitlement of the appellant.
6.8. As far as limitation is concerned, the assessee’s submission is that they have not concealed any information from the Department and the Department was aware of the activities of the appellant. In this regard, we find that it is not in dispute that levy of service tax on ‘Renting of Immovable Property’ was levied from 01/06/2007 and the appellant has been paying since then despite the fact that the same having been struck down as unconstitutional and thereafter the Finance Act, 2010 was introduced validation provisions with retrospective effect but the assessee has been paying service tax on ‘Renting of Immovable Property’ from the very beginning. Further we find that there have been series of correspondence between the assessee and the Department and the assessee have been supplying all the information asked by the Department. We also find that the learned Commissioner has given in para 21 justification for invoking extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee has delayed or refused information sought by the Department and contravened various provisions of law which is nothing but suppression of facts and contravention of the provision of the rules with intent to evade payment of tax. In this regard, we would like to mention the various correspondences exchanged between the assessee and the Department which are reproduced below:-
i. Vide summons no 12/2007 dt.09/07/2007 Superintendent of Central Excise, Service tax range has summoned officers of Technopark to appear in person on 18/07/2006 and give some particulars regarding nonpayment of service tax under the category of maintenance and repair services. On an adjourned appearance on 20/07/2007 statement was recorded from our Assistant Finance Officer Mr. N. Viswanathan, where activities carried out by Technopark were discussed in detail and statement obtained but no further action initiated.
ii. Department Internal Auditors conducted the audit for the period covering October 2003 to September 2008 during Oct-Nov 2008.
iii. Letter OC 56/2009 dt.28.01.2009 Superintendent, Service Tax Group C, Trivandrum communicating objection raised by Internal Audit containing three issues 1. Service tax liability under Business support Service, 2. Service tax liability under Business Support Service in respect of commitment charges forfeited during 2007-08 and 3. Service tax liability under selling of space or time for Advertisement service.
iv. Letter ETPK/FIN/SerTax/2008-09 dt.26.02.2009 addressed to Superintendent, Group C furnishing our reply to the three issues raised in the above said letter in line with our current views.
v. Further details were called for vide OC No.99/2009 dt.27.02.2009. The reply for the same was given on 02.03.2009. No further queries were received from the department regarding the same.
vi. On 30.09.2009 the Superintendent of Service Tax D Group issued a letter no. O.C No.742/2009 to inform that Technopark has to pay service tax on building maintenance and campus maintenance under the category “Renting of immovable property” only.
vii. CERA conducted the audit of Technopark for the period 2009-10.
iii. Letter OC 407/2009 dt.08.07.2009 of Range D, Superintendent communicating audit objections raised by CERA in 2009-10. In this we were informed about short payment of service tax under the head “Renting of immovable property” for the period 6/07 to 3/09 of Rs.48.35 lakhs was pointed by audit and Technopark was required to pay the amount under renting of immovable property.
Another issue pointed out, was ineligibility of architectural service as per circular 98/1/2008 dt.04.01.2008 of CBEC.
ix. Our reply dt.13.08.2009 addressed to Superintendent Service Tax, Range-D explaining that there is no short payment of service tax under renting of immovable property service and that credit has been validly availed by us.
x. Further letter OC.No.246/2009 dt.30.06.2010 was sent by Superintendent, Service tax –D Group asking for the details regarding break up of our receipts from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2010 even though the details of our income till 31.03.2008 was already provided to Service tax C Group Superintendent earlier. Since the details related to a number of years and providing the details in such short span of time as 30 days is not possible we asked for further time vide our letter dt.24.07.2010. The details were provided by us on 27.09.2010 along with our letter no. ETPK/FIN/Sertax/2010-11/3. On 10.11.2010 Superintendent, Service tax –D Group has asked for detailed break up of our receipts under various heads from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2010 and some other particulars vide OC No 473/2009. However the format in which it was required was not mentioned. We took considerable effort to extract and submit the details only to be informed that the same is to be submitted in a different format.
6.9. Further assessee has relied upon various decisions holding that extended period of limitation can only be invoked if the assessee’s case falls in the proviso to Section 73. Further we find that the assessee-appellant is an entity promoted by Govt. of Kerala. Therefore extended period of limitation cannot be invoked alleging suppression of facts or mala fide intention in view of the decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. CCE, Madras cited supra. Other decisions relied upon by the assessee-appellant are given herein below:-
i. CCE Vs. Singh Transporters [2018(13) GSTL J40 (SC)]
ii. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE [2019(367) ELT A255(SC)]
iii. CCE, Baroda Vs. Cotspun Ltd. [1999(113) ELT 353 (SC)]
iv. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs. CCT, Bangalore [2020(40) GSTL 33 (Tri. Bang.)]
v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. CCE, Madras [1994(74) ELT 9 (SC);
vi. BSNL Vs. CST Bangalore [2009(9) STR 499 (Tri. Bang.)]
vii. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2013(288) ELT 161 (SC)]
viii. Gangadhar Bulk Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2012(27) STR 258 (Tri. Mum.)]
ix. CST Vs. Vijay Television (P) Ltd. [2015-TIOL-874-HC-MAD-ST]
7. As far as interest and penalties are concerned, in view of our discussion above, when the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of payment of interest does not arise and since there was no intention to evade service tax, penalties are also not imposable.
8. In view of our discussion about, we are of the considered view that the impugned order confirming the demand of service tax under the category of Support Services for Business or Commerce as well as demanding service tax on the amount received from KSITIL and demanding service tax on notional interest on refundable deposit and demanding service tax on sale of space or time for advertisement and tour operator service are not sustainable. Hence we set aside the same. For the purpose of Cenvat credit on various input services, we remand the matter to the original authority for verification of the documents that may be submitted by the assessee-appellant and direct the original authority to pass reasoned order thereafter for claim of Cenvat credit.
9. In the result, we partially allow the appeal of the assessee to the extent stated hereinabove and remand the matter to the original authority on the issue of Cenvat credit only. Department’s appeal is dismissed. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 26/07/2021)
