M/s. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
The learned consultant submitted that the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund on Outdoor Catering and Air Travel Agency services by holding that the sufficient documents have not been produced with the explanation.
He further submitted that renting of immovable property services has been specifically covered in the judgments cited supra. He also submitted that in the appellants own case for the prior period, this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 20050- 20057/2017 dated 13.1.2017 has allowed the refund on renting of immovable property service.
He further submitted that vide the above referred final order dated 13.1.2017, this Tribunal has allowed the refund on Event Management Service also. He further submitted that the Event Management Service fall under the definition of input service as the same is related to the business of the company.
As far as Outdoor Catering Service is concerned, the learned consultant referred to the Policy of the Company, which is on record vide which it provides that the catering service will be provided free of cost to its employees and the company will not charge any amount for the Outdoor Catering Service to its employees. The learned Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund on these services only on the ground that the appellant has not proved that they have not recovered any charges from the employees for providing Outdoor Catering Service.
Held by CESTAT
In view of definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, all these input services on which refund has been denied are related to the provisions of Export of Service. Further, for the subsequent period, the Department itself has allowed the refund on certain services and this Tribunal in the appellants own case also vide Final Order No. 20050- 20057/2017 dated 13.1.2017 has allowed the refund on Renting of Immovable Property service and Event Management Service. In view of the decisions cited supra, I am of the considered view that all these services fall in the definition of input service and the appellants are entitled to claim refund subject to verification of documents.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
The appellant has filed these three appeals against the common impugned order dated 28.8.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and modified the Order-in-Original.
2. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical, therefore, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of all the three appeals are given herein below:
