At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ARCHANA WADHWA
By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DEVENDER SINGH
For Petitioner: V. Gupta, AR And For Respondents: Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate
1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner vide which he has allowed the Cenvat credit availed by the respondent on the basis of the invoices issued by M/s. Indian Hotel Company Limited, Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. Revenue's grievance is that the services provided by M/s. Indian Hotel Company Limited stands classified by them under the category of 'Management Consultant Services' and the respondent had availed 100% credit of the Service Tax paid on the same, whereas, according to the Revenue the said services are required to be classified under heading 'Business Auxiliary Services' or 'Business Support Services', in which case the utilization of the credit would be restricted to 20%.
3. After hearing both the sides, we find that an identical dispute was the subject matter of the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Piem Hotels Ltd. and M/s. Indian Hotel Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. The Tribunal vide its Order Nos. A/86862-86863/2016/STB, dated 30-3-2016 [2016 (43) S.T.R. 211 (Tribunal)] has observed M/s. Indian Hotel Company Limited that were registered under the category of Management Consultancy Services and were issuing invoices after payment of Service Tax under the said category. It was also observed that M/s. Indian Hotel Company Limited were filing ST-3 returns with their jurisdictional Service Tax authorities, which were being finalized by them. As such the assessment cannot be reopened at the recipients end and the services cannot be reclassified under a different category. The Tribunal also observed that the proceedings for change of classification at the service providers end were initiated in 2011 and concluded vide Order-in-Original dated 25-2-2015. Such change in classification was held as not affecting the credit already availed by the service recipients prior to the said date. Accordingly, the Tribunal observed that the credit availed during the period April, 2005 to September, 2010 cannot be denied.
4. The period involved in the present appeal is from April, 2005 to March, 2009. The facts of the present case are pari materia to the facts of t
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he Tribunal decision referred supra. As such we are of the view that in the light of the ratio declared by the Tribunal in the above referred case, the present appeal of the Revenue lacks merit and deserves to be rejected. We order accordingly.