9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid. The CENVAT credit on such input services having accumulated, the appellant filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) read with Notification No.27/2012-CE-NT dt. 18/06/2012. The adjudicating authority allowed refund in regard to some services and denied refund with regard to certain services on the ground that such services do not have nexus with the output service. Though the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), the order passed by original authority was upheld. Hence the present appeal. 3. The details of the input services rejected as submitted by the consultant for appellant is as under:- i. In appeal No.ST/27855/2013 Sl. No. Nature of service Reason &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed on renting of the premises. As per the rent agreement, apart from the rent the appellant is obliged to pay common area maintenance charges also. The service tax was paid inclusive of charges for common area maintenance. He submitted that this is part and parcel of the renting of premises from where the output services are provided. Without payment of charges towards maintenance of common area, the appellant would not be able to get any premises on rent for conduct of his business. 5. The learned AR Shri P. Sudhakar Reddy vehemently opposed this submission stating that the common area does not have any nexus with providing the output service. 6. On hearing the rival submissions and perusal of rent agreement, I find substance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that appellant is not eligible for refund of credit/service tax paid on these services. 9. Visa charges was explained by the learned counsel for appellant to be service tax paid on services consumed for visa interview of employees to go abroad. The services were availed from M/s. OSI Consulting Services. I do not find that these services are eligible for refund. Firstly, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that it was not for the personal consumption of the employee. Secondly there are no documents to show that the amount was not recovered from the employee. On these grounds, the refund of credit in respect of visa charge service, in my opinion, is not admissible. 10. From the above I hold that appellant is eligible for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
