9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 226 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - refund of CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the appellant is not able to show that these services are used for export of services; and also that one refund claim of July 2006 was filed beyond the period of limitation - Held that - the services availed by the appellant are eligible for refund keeping in view of various decisions cited by the appellant - refund allowed. Time limitation - Held that - the law on this point is also settled by the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P) Ltd. 2016 (7) TMI 1346 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , where it was held that if a refund claim is filed within one year from the date of realization of consideration, should be accepted and allowed - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim by the appellant, a 100% EOU, for CENVAT credit on various input services. - Partial allowance of refund claim by appellate authority and rejection on grounds of services not used for export and filing beyond the limitation period. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the rejection of a refund claim by a 100% EOU for CENVAT credit on multiple input services. The appellant sought a refund for services like Advertising Agency, Event Management, and General Insurance, among others. The appellate authority partially allowed the claim but rejected it for specific services, citing reasons that the services were not proven to be used for export purposes and that one claim was filed beyond the limitation period. The learned counsel argued that the services in question were eligible for refund, citing precedents like M/s. Bharat Pntz. Werner Ltd. vs. CCE and J. P. Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. The counsel also contended that the claim filed beyond the limitation period was within one year of realization of consideration, referencing the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P) Ltd. The court acknowledged the settled law on this point and emphasized that a claim filed within one year of realization should be accepted and allowed. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside by the Bench, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding refund claims and the significance of legal precedents in determining the eligibility of services for CENVAT credit refund for 100% EOUs.
|
