9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar.T.R, CA For the Appellant Mrs. Ezhilmathi, AR For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the appeal of the appellant was partly allowed and refund of unutilised service tax credit in respect of CHA Service, C F Service and Telephone service was allowed only. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellant is a 100% EOU and holder of private bonded warehouse license and in-bond manufacture Sanction Order dated 5/2006 and export flavours, essences and odiferous substances falling under chapter heading 3302 1010 of CETA, 1985. 2. The appellant filed refund of ₹ 10,94,507/- on 3.4.2012 for the period July 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t services. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions. (i) Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (15) S.T.R. 169 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) JSW Steels Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (14) S.T.R. 310 4.1 As far as Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) is concerned, the impugned order rejected the refund of ₹ 6,907/- by holding that services claimed under BAS i.e., CHA and insurance are claimed separately by the appellant and the appellant has not clarified as to why they claimed refund of these two services under the category of BAS when they made separate claims under the said services. Learned counsel further submitted that by mistake few invoices of CHA and insurance services were included under BAS and refund was claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel requested that let the matter be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter afresh after considering all the documentary evidence which the appellant would submit before that authority. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law denying the refund claim in respect of banking and financial services, BAS, and visa charges, I set aside the impugned order to that extent and hold that these services fall under the definition of input services and it has nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant. With regard to other submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
