9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Registration dated 21/8/2006 and registered as an 100% EOU with the office of Development Commissioner, NSEZ, Noida and is engaged in providing business of the service for the client located outside India. For the period January to March 2007 the appellant preferred refund claim of input credit availed which could not be utilized due to the export nature of the output services amounting to Rs. 81,21,592/-. Vide order dated 13/6/2008 part of the refund claim was allowed amounting to Rs. 45,58,308/- and the balance was rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal in part upholding the disallowance with respect to input services received at unregistered premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vel helpdesk amounting to be 30,598/- is concerned, it is urged that the ld.Commissioner erred in upholding the disallowance by observing that as the appellant is an exporter of service, they can have no business of travelling within India for business purposes. The said finding this extraneous and no disallowance can be sustained of the same. It is further emphasised that the service in relation to business travel and hence the services received from the travel agent is fully allowable as input services. So far the services received at guest house relating to service tax of Rs. 27,265/- is concerned, it is stated that the guest house is used for business purposes. The travelling executives from other branch offices stay at the guest house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower recruitment agencies wherein the name of the appellant is not mentioned on the invoice. The ld. Counsel for the applicant has produced the Invoices at pages 293 to 296 of the appeal book. Out of the 4 invoices, 3 invoices are raised in the name of one Mr.Jagat Sabharwal. The invoices were received in the receipt Department of the appellant assessee. The ld. Counsel urges that the appellant have received services and have paid the amount for the service along with service tax and as such the same should be allowed. 3. The ld.A.R. for revenue relies on various co-ordinate bench rulings of this Tribunal in the case of Market Creators Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2014-TIOL-2021-CESTAT-AHM wherein the fact was that the assessee was registered for provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee, the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit and imposed penalty. This Tribunal observed that there is no dispute that the invoice was not issued in the name of the assessee. I do not find force in the submission of the assessee that that is no requirement to mention the recipient name in the duty paying document and in absence of document as prescribed under rule 7 (1)(a) of the CCR the disallowance of credit was upheld. 4. Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that so far the amount of Rs. 2,05,860/-, is concerned, the same is allowable in view of the fact that the premises in question have been subsequently recognised and added in the centralized registration certificate. Moreover, registration is not a pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
