9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T/2950/2011 & ST/2952/2011 - A/31077-31078/2016 - Dated:- 24-10-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Shrujan Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, AR for the Respondent. ORDER The above appeals are filed against the rejection of refund claim unutilised Cenvat credit of input services availed by the appellant. 2. The appellant filed refund claim for the period from January, 2010 to March, 2010 (Appeal No.ST/2950/2011 and also for the period April, 2010 to June, 2010 ( Appeal No. ST/2952/2011), in regard to the credit availed on service tax paid on various input services used for export of IT Software Service under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, r/w Notification No.5/2006, dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Travel Agent/Tour operator services 29,026/- 18,554/- Total 2,04,619/- 1,67,985/- 3. On behalf of the appellant the Ld. Consultant Shri Shurujan Kumar, explained that an amount of ₹ 2,04,619/- for the period January, 2010 to March, 2010 was rejected stating that the appellant has not established nexus of these input services with the output services exported. An amount of ₹ 12,360/ -has been rejected on the ground that invoices were not produced by the appellant. Further an amount of ₹ 56,183/- was rejected for the reasons that appellant had received the said amount as advance payment in the month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-02-2016, A/30315/2016, dated 05-04-2016 and No. A/30065/2016, dated 20-01-2016 has held the above services except general insurance services to be eligible for the credit. It is submitted by the Id. Counsel that GIS (travel insurance) was availed by the appellant for the travel conducted by employee to attend seminar and other meetings abroad. In Appeal No.2952/ 2011, the Commissioner(Appeals) has observed that an amount of ₹ 8,669/- is remanded to the refund sanctioning authority for the reasons that the invoices show some discrepancies. The Ld. Consultant submitted that the appellant is confining the challenge in the second appeal to an amount of ₹ 1,67,985/-. That the amount of ₹ 1,67,985/- put forward in the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
