The Mumbai CESTAT has held that the onus is on Revenue to establish that the hiring of hall for conference by the appellant had no nexus with the output service.
The proceedings at the lower level resulted in denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant on architect service and on office renovation service to the tune of respectively Rs.7,01,430/- and Rs.2,86,995/- holding that the same are not satisfying the definition of input service.
Another Cenvat credit of Rs.1,03,906/- was denied to the appellant for the reason that PAN based service tax number was not available on the invoices of input services.
The Cenvat credit of Rs.1,546/- was denied to the appellant for the reason that the same was paid to a hotel where business conference was held, but in the opinion of lower authorities, it had no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant.
The department contended that order-in-appeal is reasonable through which the said Cenvat credit was denied and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 were imposed on the appellant.
The appellant has submitted that the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit of service tax paid for repair and renovation of office as provided through a clarification in circular issued by CBEC and also as held by this Tribunal through precedent decision in the case of Asrani Inns & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2023 (4) TMI 606 – CESTAT MUMBAI.
The CESTAT set aside that part of the order through which Cenvat credit of Rs.10,93,877 was denied to the appellant and allowed the appeal.
M/s. McKinsey & Co. Inc. V/s Commissioner of CGST & CE, Mumbai South