9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 489 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - refund of accumulated credit - Refund rejected on the ground that some of the services on which the refund claimed are common services and should have been distributed between the E.O.U. and STPI following the concept of input service distributor' - Held that - credit cannot be denied on the ground that in respect of two units are located in the same premises, there is necessity to take input distributor registration and distribute the credit. - appellant should have taken input distributor registration, is set aside and as regards nexus, the matter is remanded to decide in the light of our decision in the Interim Order (2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE) as well as further decisions on the issue which may be placed before the original authority. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Refund claim rejection due to common services and nexus with export of goods.
In the judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the refund claim of the appellant for accumulated credit from April 2012 to June 2012 was rejected because some services were considered common and should have been distributed between the E.O.U. and STPI as per the concept of 'input service distributor'. It was noted that services exclusively used by E.O.U. without nexus to export of goods cannot be refunded. The appellant argued that since STPI and E.O.U. were in the same premises but registered separately, there was no need for credit distribution. The Tribunal agreed, stating that credit denial based on units being in the same premises was unjustified. Regarding the nexus issue, the Tribunal referred to a previous Interim Order in the case of M/s Apotex Research (P) Ltd. & Ors. The appellant requested a remand to the original authority to decide the nexus issue for each input service in line with the Interim Order and other relevant decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order requiring input distributor registration and remanded the matter to determine nexus based on their previous decision and additional relevant judgments to be presented. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.
|
