9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 998 - AT - Service TaxSEZ Unit - Refund of Service tax - rejection on the ground that the documents enclosed in respect of service tax paid to M/s. Maersk Line India (P) Ltd. does not tally with the service tax paid and claimed - Held that - In all the invoices produced, there is a mention of Bill of Lading No. 560518665 dated 26.06.2013 and the input service relates to the said Bill of Lading and therefore there is a nexus between input service and the authorized operation - refund is allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Refund claim of service tax in respect of CHA service disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowing the appellant's appeal regarding a refund claim of service tax. The appellant, a SEZ unit manufacturing and exporting Wind Mill parts, sought a refund of service tax amounting to &8377; 1,22,17,810 for the period April 2014 to June 2014 under Notification No. 12/2013. The Assistant Commissioner rejected a portion of the refund claim, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly allowed the appeal but disallowed the refund in relation to CHA service, Business Auxiliary Service, and Insurance Service. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the disallowance of the refund of &8377; 81,131 specifically in respect of CHA service. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the rejection of the refund claim of &8377; 81,131 was not legally sustainable as it was done without proper consideration of the documents on record. The Commissioner (Appeals) had based the rejection on the discrepancy between the documents submitted and the service tax paid to M/s. Maersk Line India (P) Ltd. The appellant contended that all relevant documents were provided to the Commissioner (Appeals) but the refund was disallowed for two specific invoices issued by M/s. Maersk Line India (P) Ltd. The appellant emphasized the interconnected nature of services provided by various entities leading to the CHA service for which the refund was sought. The counsel highlighted the clear nexus between the input service and the appellant's authorized operation, supported by legal precedents such as CST v. Zydus Technologies Ltd., Wardha Power Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CCE & ST, (LTU) Mumbai. After reviewing the submissions and the evidence on record, the Judicial Member found that all invoices presented contained a reference to the Bill of Lading No. 560518665 dated 26.06.2013, establishing a direct link between the input service and the authorized operation of the appellant. Consequently, the Judicial Member allowed the appeal by overturning the impugned order that denied the refund claim of &8377; 81,131 in relation to the CHA service. The decision was made with consequential relief, if applicable, and the operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 08/03/2018.
|
