9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es are input services – refund allowed. SEZ – services consumed in SEZ – services provided in relation to authorized operation in SEZ – Held that: - It is option available to the service provider either to pay service tax or provide the service under exemption available to the SEZ Unit. The inputs service were received on payment of service tax. Output services exported – refund allowed. Time-barred – filed after one year from the date of exports – Held that: - refund was sought under Rule 5 which itself provided that refund claim is compulsorily to be filed on quarterly basis. As per this provision appellant is not allowed to file refund before completion of particular quarter, Period of one year therefore should be calculated from the last date of the quarter – appellant filed refund claim within one year from the last day of the quarter – refund allowed. Absence of original documents – Held that: - if the Adjudicating authority has any doubt, he may call for the original documents, in that event appellant should submit original documents as and when required – matter remanded – appellant to be given opportunity of being heard – appeal allowed – decided in favor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34/- ii)Invoices not in name (Rs 2,730/-) 4 PD/831-834 dated 30.07.2014 R-123/AAA/10-11 dated 16.11.2011 Oct 2010-Dec 2010 10,77,276/- 6,17,175/- i)NO Nexus Air Travel agency -( ₹ 4,058/-) Club and association services -(Rs 309/-) General Insurance-(Rs 45,450/-) Management or maintenance of repair services-(Rs 714/-) Mandap Keeper Services (Rs 9,250/-) Rent a cab operation-(Rs 3,549/-) Storage and warehousing services-(Rs 1,997/-) ST/85442/15 Sr No O-I-A No and date OIO NO Date Details of Refund claim Amount of claim (RS) Claim disallowed Reason for disallowing 1 PD/825-827/ST-II/2014 dated 30.07.2014 R-02/HGP/09-10 dated 27.04.09 01.02.2008 to 29.02.2008 363811 269999 i)No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy Service, (ix) Club and Association Service, (x) General Insurance Service, (xi) Mandap Keeper Service, (xii) Rent a Cab Service, (xiii) Storage and warehouse Service, (xiv) Cleaning Activity Service. (c) The services consumed in the SEZ which are exempted from the payment of service tax, it is provided in relation to the authorized operation in SEZ. (d) Some of the refund claim are time barred as the same were filed beyond the period of one year from the date of exports. (e) The appellant have not submitted original documents in support of their refund claim. 3. Shri. Mihir Deshmukh, Ld Counsel with Shri. Abhijit Singh, and Ms. Ami Parekh, Advocate for the appellant submits that as regard the Cenvat credit availed on the invoices prior to registration, the issue is no longer res-integra in light of following judgments of this Tribunal: (a) mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd Vs. CST Bangalore[2012(27) STR 134(Kar)] (b) Textech International (P) Ltd Vs. CST, Chennai [2011(21) STR 289(Tri. Chennai)] (c) CST, Bang Vs. Aviva Global Services(bang) P. Ltd [2014(33) STR 270(Tri. Bang)] (d) Well Known Polysters Ltd Vs. CCE, Vap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (w) CCE, Chennai Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd[2010-TIOL-1075-CESTAT] 3.2 He submits that Adjudicating authority though the matter was of refund while passing adjudication order directed reversal of Cenvat credit without giving any findings on the same. He submits that there should be independent proceedings for disallowance of the credit and no show cause notice was issued in that regard to the appellant. Therefore in the matters of refund claim filed by the appellant, raising the issue whether the inputs are admissible or otherwise and also reversal of Cenvat credit is illegal and incorrect. 3.3 In regard with the refund claim rejected on time bar, he submits that adjudicating authority has rejected the claim on the ground that refund claim was not filed within the one year from the date of exports. He submits that under the provision of Rule 5, the refund has to be filed on quarterly basis therefore the period of one year is reckoned from date of end of the quarter for which refund claim was filed. It is undisputed that refund claim was filed well within one year from the date of end of each quarter. This issue has been settled in various d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as first appellate authority. As regard the nexus of input service with the output services, I find that almost all the services which have been disputed were allowed as input service in various judgments, which are cited below: Air Travel Agents Services (i) Nash Industries vs Commissioner of Cus., and ST[ 2015 (3-) STR 1060] (ii) Telco Construction Equipment Ltd vs CCE 2013 (32) STR 482 (iii) Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Noida. 2013 (32) S. T. R. 123 (Tri. - Del.), Business Support Services (i) Castrol India Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. Vapi - [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Cleaning Services (i) HCL Technologies Ltd vs Comm. CUS, CEX and ST [2015 (40) STR 1124 ] (ii) Heartland Bangalore Transcription Ser. (P) Ltd. vs. C.S.T. Bangalore -2011 ''.21) S.T.R. 430 (-Fri. Bang) Information Technology Software Services (i) Accenture Services Pvt Ltd. vs CST [2015 (40) STR 719 ] (ii) CCE vs Mavenir Systems P Ltd[ 2012 (27) STR 510] Management, Maintenance Or Repairs Services , (i) HCL Technologies Ltd. Vs Comm Cust, Excise And ST 2015(40) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd[2010(20) STR 577], Coca cola India Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE Pune III[2009(15) STR 657] that the services used for business activity are admissible input services and credit is allowed on such services. Moreover, as per the above chart all the services have been held as input service therefore refund claim rejected on the ground that input service have no nexus with the export service is absolutely incorrect and illegal and same is not sustainable. 6.2 The lower authorities also contended that appellant being SEZ unit received and consumed the services in the SEZ which are otherwise exempted therefore refund under Rule 5 is not admissible on the services received in SEZ. In this regard I find that Rule 5 does not restrict the refund in respect of service tax paid on the services received for the SEZ. It is option available to the service provider either to pay service tax or provide the service under exemption available to the SEZ Unit. In the present case admittedly all the inputs service were received on payment of service tax therefore the same is refundable under Rule 5 as output service were admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
