9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred the credits to the respective plant in terms of Rule 7 of CCR which has not been appreciated by the authorities below. Therefore, this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority who will examine the entire case - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/22495/2014-SM - Final Order No. 21658 / 2017 - Dated:- 11-5-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Akbar Basha, CA For the Appellant Mr. Parashivamurthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has partially allowed the appeal of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order where the Commissioner (A) has denied the refund, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant being 100% EOU are manufactures and exporters of bulk drugs. They filed refund claim for ₹ 1,36,09,511/- for the period from October 2012 to December 2012 being the refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid on inputs, input services and credit availed on services distributed through Input Service Distribution (ISD) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the provisions of CCR, 2004 and by ignoring the binding judicial precedents on the same issue. He further submitted that the impugned order has denied the refund of ₹ 3,554/- on the ground that the original invoice was not provided whereas they have enclosed the certified copies of such invoice for reference with the appeal-paper also, which shows that the credit on inputs was rightly claimed. With regard to input services on which refund was denied, the learned CA has submitted that all these input services have been specifically held to be input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 by the various decisions of the Tribunal which has been given in the tabular form as under: Input Services Reasons for rejection Relied upon case laws Annual Maintenance Charges AMC for Air conditioners, Fire Extinguisher, AHU s, weighing balance, spectrometer, boiler, DG set, etc., are part of the factory for manufacturing. * Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (30) STR 572 (Tri.-Mum.) * M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016-TIOL-2392-CESTAT-MUM * CCE vs. Aricent Communications Pvt. Ltd.: 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king credit. * Wipro Ltd. vs. UOI: 2013 (29) STR 545 (Del.) * CCE vs. Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (37) STR J244 (Kar.) * CST vs. Jubilant Biosys Ltd.: 2016 (42) STR 729 (Tri.-Bang.) * CCE vs. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd.: 2016 (41) STR 994 (Tri.-Mum.) Consultancy Charges Consultancy charges are in respect of services from professionals like Chartered Accountants, Lawyers, Management Consultants, HRM, ERP Implementation, Payroll, Statutory Compliance, etc., These services are very much essential for obtaining legal services and other clarifications for the manufacturing activity carried on by the appellant. * M/s. Heartland Bangalore Transcription Services (P) Ltd. vs. CST: 2011 (21) STR 430 (Tri.-Bang.) * CCE vs. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt Ltd.: 2008 (11) STR 266 (Tri.-Bang.) * M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CST: 2016-TOIL-2392-CESTAT-MUM. Manpower Supply Appellant being a pharmaceutical company, in terms of Regulatory Standards they are required to ensure they have a clean and hygienic environment suitable to manufacture drugs. * HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida: 2015 (40) STR 1124 (Tri.-Del.) * Reliance Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the following decisions: * Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016-TOIL-728-CESTAT-BANG. * CCE vs. Ecof Industries Pt. Ltd.: 2011 (271) ELT 58 (Kar.) * Doshion Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4.4 Further, with regard to advertisement service, the appellant submitted that this service was availed to advertise the product manufactured by the appellant in Bangalore. Further, with regard to AMC, he submitted that this service was availed at the Corporate Office at Bangalore towards maintenance of machineries, computers and AMC services incurred for use of computers and other facilities. Further, with regard to bio study charges, the learned CA submitted that this service was availed at the Corporate Office and not at the Registered Office at Mumbai. Further, the credits were distributed to its manufacturing units in respective proportion in terms of Rule 7 of CCR. Similarly, with regard to clearing and forwarding charges which includes loading and unloading charges paid towards export of finished goods, and further with regard to professional fees for the services commonly used in all the factories which are billed in the name of Corporate Office. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
