9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1789 - AT - Service TaxRefund of Service Tax - proportionate service tax credit paid and distributed, as Inputs Service Distributer (ISD) on invoices, by the Head Office of the appellant - refund rejected on the ground of non approval of the list of service in terms of SEZ Act by the Development Committee - HELD THAT - The Notification No. 9/2009, 15/2009 and 17/2011 are preceding notifications to Notification No. 40/2012 dated 2.06.2012, under which the present refund claims have been filed. All these notifications pertains to SEZ and have identical provisions. For the denial of refund on account of Business Exhibition Service to the appellant for displaying of their goods in exhibition, the issue is decided by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in NEW SWAN ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUDHIANA 2016 (9) TMI 1486 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , wherein it has been held that the Business Exhibition Service is for the display of goods in the exhibition, which is ultimately for the business promotion activities and therefore, the activity is having nexus with the manufacturing business of the appellant - Similar is the case of the appellant, who has consumed the business exhibition service for conducting display of their product in exhibition at Chicago, through Trident Exhibiters, Noida. It is also evident from the invoice of Trident, dated 09.11.2012, that the service pertained to the Appellant s unit only. In view of above, the Appellant has rightly availed the Cenvat Credit on Business Exhibition Service , and it is refundable to it in terms of the Notification. The impugned order is therefore, not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by Deputy Commissioner. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 40/2012-Service Tax to SEZ units. 3. Denial of refund for Business Exhibition Service. 4. Denial of Cenvat credit for Input Services distributed by Head Office. Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim by Deputy Commissioner The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid on various services under Notification No. 40/2012-Service Tax. The Assistant Commissioner partially sanctioned the refund, rejecting a portion of it. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the rejection. The appellant argued that the rejection was unsustainable as the SEZ units are exempt from duties and taxes under the SEZ Act 2005. The Tribunal held that the non-approval of the list of services by the Development Commissioner was not fatal to the refund claim, citing precedents. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 40/2012-Service Tax to SEZ units The appellant contended that services used within the SEZ were eligible for a total refund of service tax paid. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that the SEZ Act 2005 granting exemption from duties and taxes had overriding effect. The impugned order's rejection of the refund claim based on non-approval of the service list was deemed unsustainable. Issue 3: Denial of refund for Business Exhibition Service The denial of refund for Business Exhibition Service used for promoting the appellant's products was challenged. The Tribunal cited a Chandigarh Bench decision and held that such services had a nexus with the manufacturing business, making them eligible for refund. The appellant's availing of Cenvat Credit on Business Exhibition Service was upheld, and the impugned order was deemed unsustainable. Issue 4: Denial of Cenvat credit for Input Services distributed by Head Office The denial of Cenvat credit for Input Services distributed by the appellant's Head Office was contested. The Tribunal ruled that the distribution of credit was permissible under Cenvat Credit Rules, and the denial based on lack of approval by the Approval Committee was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
|
