9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AKA HIGH COURT] followed – these services considered as input service - Cenvat credit is admissible on these services. Rent-a-cab services - Refund availed in excess - Telecommunication/Internet Telecommunication Service - Chartered Accountant’s Service – Held that: - assesse not entitled to refund. Period of limitation - whether limitation of one year should be reckoned from the date of FIRC or from the end of particular quarter? – Held that: - export is completed as on date of FIRC but Rule 5 provides for filing of refund on quarterly basis i.e. only after completion of the quarter. In this situation refund can only be filed after last date of the quarter. If this is so, period of one year provided under Section 11B cannot start on any date before end of the quarter, it has to be reckoned from next date of quarter ends - assessee has filed refund claim within one year from end of the quarter therefore it is within limitation – refund not time bar. Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for computation of refund – appeal disposed off. - ST/85446, 85447/15, ST/85612 & 86211/15 - A/89239-89242/16/SMB, S/89243/16/SMB - Dated:- 18-8-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce were availed in excess. In case of refund of ₹ 9,77,895/- Ld. Commissioner allowed the refund of ₹ 8,60,629/- however refund of ₹ 1,17,266 rejected on the ground that the same is related to Cenvat credit availed on Rent-a-Cab Service which was excluded from the definition of input service. Being aggrieved by order-in-original assessee filed two appeals bearing No. ST/85446 85447/15. Department also filed two appeals, first appeal bearing No. ST/86211/15 against Order-in-Appeal dated 9/2/2015 where under refund of ₹ 5,59,412/- was also rejected vide Order-in-Original dated 31/7/2014 and second appeal bearing No. ST/85612/15 against Order-in-Appeal No. 11/11/2014 whereunder out of the refund claim filed for ₹ 9,77,895/-, which was rejected, the first appellate authority has allowed the refund of ₹ 8,60,629/- . 3. Shri. Mihir Deshmukh, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that as regard the appeal No. ST/85447/15, it is related to the refund of ₹ 1,17,266/-which is against the Cenvat credit availed on Rent-a-Cab services. Since the said service stands excluded from the scope of input service, Ld Counsel concedes and does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue, as regard the assesee s appeals are concern he reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly denied the Cenvat credit in respect of Event management services and insurance auxiliary services as the same are not used in the providing output service. As regard the rent-a-cab service the same was excluded from the definition of input services therefore the same is also not admissible. As regard the Revenue s appeal he submits that Ld. Commissioner (appeals) allowed the part refund holding that refund is not time bar. He submits that it is appellant s admission that FIRC were received during the relevant quarter therefore export is completed as on date of FIRC. As per the Section 11B one year period is reckoned from the date of export therefore refund is time bar. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. From the overall case, issues to be decided by me arises as under: (a) Regarding the refund under Rule 5 read with Notification No. 27/12-CE(N.T.)whether export turnover shall include the receipt of foreign convertible currency a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund has to be computed by taking date of FIRC during the particular quarter for the purpose of export turnover. 6.1 Regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit of Event Management Services, Insurance Auxiliary Services which is group medical insurance for the employee and rent a cab service, I am of the view that in various judgments of this tribunal event management service and group medical insurance for the employee have been considered as input service therefore Cenvat credit is admissible on these services. The relevant judgments are as under: Event Management Services 1. Dell International Services India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore 2010 (17) S.T.R. 540 (Tri. - Bang.) 2. Castrol India Limited Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] 3. J.P. Morgan Services (i) pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai [2016 (42) S.T.R. 196 (Tri.-Mumbai) Group Medical Insurance Services 1. H.E.G. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR [2011 (21) S.T.R. 300 (Tri. - Del.)] 2. Millipore India Limited Vs CCE, Bangalore 2009 (13) S.T.R. 616 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
