9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosed the credit in ER-2 Return which is only a procedural requirement and does not disentitle him for the refund - the said service falls in the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules as the same is related to the business of the appellant - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20094/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20431 / 2017 - Dated:- 28-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Srinivasa K.P., CA For the Appellant Shri Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice . He further submitted that the appellant had disclosed this input service in its service tax return in Form ST-3 for the relevant period along with the service tax paid as receiver of services and therefore correctly did not disclose the credit in Form ER-2 as this would amount to declaring the same credit twice. He further submitted that as per Clauses 1(d) to 1(i) of the agreement with the provider of input services which stipulates that the services are provided in relation to the following: 7.1. The services shall be in relation to technicians to assist your appellant in carrying out improvements to the production process. 7.2. The services shall aid quality upgradation. 7.3. The provision of technicians and suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich cenvat credit was availed on service tax paid on royalty on Reverse Charge basis vide Order-in-Original dated 26.04.2013. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material place on record and the judgment cited by the learned consultant for the appellant, I find that the impugned order denying the refund of cenvat credit availed on service tax paid on royalty on Reverse Charge basis under the category of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services is not sustainable in law for the reason that the appellants have made a full disclosure of the cenvat credit availed and the same has been shown in ST-3 Returns. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
