Case Law Details
Kantar IMRB Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Mumbai Central (CESTAT Mumbai)
Appellant had paid rent on halls hired in the hotels where the halls were hired for interviews with the respondents and all the expenses were reimbursed by their clients on actual basis. He further stated that for conducting market research, employees have to travel and stay in hotels and such hotel stay expenses are essential part of activity for output services and therefore, service tax paid on hotel stay expenses were availed by them as CENVAT Credit. Further, he stated that both the said activities are essential input activities for providing output service of market research on which they have paid service tax. He has claimed that the said service tax credit is admissible to them.
Original authority held that there is no nexus between above said two activities and the services provided by the appellant are not eligible for availment of credit.
CESTAT find that the show cause notice was issued by Revenue for denial of CENVAT Credit on above stated input services. Since, the show cause notice was issued by Revenue, burden of proof was on Revenue to establish that the hiring of halls and hotel rooms had no nexus with the output services. Whereas the finding as recorded by both the original and appellate authorities did not indicate that the burden of proof is discharged by Revenue. I, therefore, hold that both the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal in the present matter are not sustainable. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and hold that above stated two activities are input services for the appellant for providing output services of market research and, therefore, service tax paid on above stated input services is admissible to the appellant for CENVAT Credit.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
