Case Law Details
M/s. Cenza Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Relying on Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. HCL Technologies reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 716 (All.) CESTAT allowed Cenvat credit on legal consultancy services. in HCL technologies it was held that “6. As regards Consultancy Services, these were comprised of the payment of invoices of the charges involved in relation to the filing of the tax return in the US. The Commissioner held that the service was governed by the definition of “input service”. The second related to Legal Consultancy Services which have also been held to fulfill the definition of the expression “input service”. Both are admissible.”
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Software Technology Park (STP) duly registered and engaged in the exportation of online information and database access/retrieval services and that there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant is engaged in the export of online information and database access services. The appellant had filed two refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of the period from October 2016 to December 2016 and January 2017 to March 2017.
2. The Adjudicating Authority passed two Orders-in-Original bearing Nos. 40/2018 (R) and 41/2018 (R) dated 26.07.2018 partly allowing the claim, against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai. After considering the plea of the assessee, the First Appellate Authority vide the impugned Order Nos. 563 and 564/2018 (CTA-II) dated 10.12.2018 rejected the appeals. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the above appeals.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
