9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - it was held in the case that In case of export of Services export is complete only when foreign exchange is received in India, relevant date of export of services is date of receipt of foreign exchange - decided against Revenue. Whether CESTAT is correct in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim of refund of Cenvat credit on construction service relying on case of Infosys Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 695 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that assessee is entitled to the Cenvat credit on construction services? - Held that: - the appellant in the Grounds of Appeal mentioned that as against the Infosys Ltd.’s case (supra), the department filed appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same is pending but failed to produce copy of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0881/2014, dated 21-5-2014 in Appeal Nos. ST/2837/2011-DB; ST/2832/2011-DB; ST/2831/2011-DB and ST/2838/2011-DB respectively passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT ), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore [2015 (39) S.T.R. 1019 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 2. The common factual matrix of all the appeals is thus : (a) The respondent/assessee - M/s. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Private Limited is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) registered under the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) for export of computer software and ITES under the category of consulting engineering service. Its basic area of work is providing product designs, modeling and analysis in car engineering etc. The assessee entered into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether Cenvat credit availed on the input services before payments for the services received? 4. (a) The first issue is concerned, relying on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I v. Eaton Industries Private Limited - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 223 (Tri.-Mumbai) the CESTAT held that relevant date for filing the refund application under Section 11B of Excise Act would be the date of receipt of consideration for services rendered and not the date when the services were provided. Thus, the CESTAT held that the refund claims were within time if the date of receipt of consideration is taken into account. (b) Then as regards admissibility of Cenvat credit on construction services, CESTAT relied upon the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of CCE, Pune-I v. Eaton Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (22) S.T.R. 223 (Tri.-Mumbai)]? (2) Whether CESTAT is correct in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim of refund of Cenvat credit on construction service relying on case of Infosys Ltd. [2014-TIOL-409-CESTAT-BANG]? (3) Whether the Tribunal is correct in remanding the matter with regard to the claim of refund of Cenvat credit on other services such as courier service, repair or maintenance services, telephone service, rent-a-cab service, management consultant service, chartered accountant service, etc., since the said services are not having nexus with their output services i.e. Consulting Engineering Service which was exported onlin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 (34) S.T.R. 364 (Tri.-Bang.), a learned Single Member of the Bangalore Tribunal expressed the view that the date on which consideration was received was relevant for making refund claim. Thereafter in Commissioner of Service Tax, Goa v. Ratio Pharma India Private Limited - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 31 (Tri.-LB), a Single Member of the Tribunal-Mumbai, having found the dichotomy between M/s. Affinity s case (supra) and Business Process Pvt. Ltd. s case (supra) referred the matter to a Larger Bench. The Larger Bench of CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai having noticed the decision of a Division Bench of Tribunal, Delhi in Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - 2014 (34) S.T.R. 437 (Tri.- Del.) to the effect that the refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Apex Court in the said alleged appeal. In these circumstances, we can only uphold the decision of the CESTAT, Bangalore relying on Infosys Ltd. s case (supra). This point is accordingly answered against the appellant. 9. Point No. 3 : This point is concerned, the CESTAT, Bangalore only remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to consider the other refund claims afresh. As such, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity therein. The appellant can put-forth its objections if any with regard to those claims and the original adjudicating authority can pass an order on merits with regard to the other claims. Accordingly this point is answered. 10. In the result, in view of the above findings, we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
