HCL Technologies Ltd. Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad)
CESTAT Sets Aside ₹93.75 Lakh Demand Against HCL, Upholds BPO Works Contract Credit Denial
Summary: The appeal concerned CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,06,11,174/- disputed on two broad counts: credit relating to input services received at BPO premises that had not been included in the centralized registration, and credit of service tax paid on Works Contract Services used for BPO offices at Gurgaon, Chennai, Hyderabad and Noida. The impugned order had disallowed the entire credit, confirmed interest, and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal considered the appeal against the order-in-original dated 12.01.2021. The appellant had been registered for service tax and was filing ST-3 returns and refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
For the first issue, the Tribunal held that credit could not be denied merely because the services had been received at unregistered premises. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court decision in Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that non-registration of premises was not a condition precedent for receipt of input services for CENVAT purposes. The demand attributable to taxable services received at the unregistered premises was therefore set aside.
