9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to make good the deficiency in the documentation - matter remanded to the original adjudicating for a de novo decision on this subject after considering the documents submitted by the appellant. Export Turnover Ratio and Apparent error and double disallowance - whether the maximum refund allowable is to be calculated on the basis of gross or net CENVAT credit which has been taken by the appellant? - Held that: - we set aside the findings of the lower authorities on the subject matter of export turnover ratio and remand the issue back to the original authority for redetermination of the same and also re-determine such refund amounts keeping in view the amended definition of exports turnover services from 1.4.2012. Credit availed in particular quarter and payment made in next quarter - Held that: - even though the payment was not made by the appellant for the services within the quarter for which the refund was claimed, the same has been made in the subsequent quarter. If that is so, then it becomes only a procedural lapse for which the substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied to the appellant - the original authority is directed to verify the fact of payment for such servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad IV [2014 TIOL-214-CESTAT-BANG] 2) Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited [Hon'ble CESTAT Bangalore Final Order No.21794-21798/2014 dated 26-Sept-2014] 3) CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST] 4) Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs Ingersoll Rand International India Ltd [2015-TIOL-1247-CESTAT-BANG] 5) Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs. MMS Maritime (India) Pvt Ltd. [2016 (41) STR 869 (Tri-Mum)] 6) Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. Vs. CCE Delhi-IV [2016 (41) STR 824 (Tri-Del) 7) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs CCEx, NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.)] 8) CST Bangalore Vs. Mercedes Benz Research & Development India (P) Ltd - [2013 (30) STR 257 (Tri-Bang)] 9) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 2 Insurance Auxiliary Service / General Insurance Service 7,520,992 1) Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-ST] 2) FIEM Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai III [TS-149-CESTAT-2016(CHNY)-ST][Final Order No. 40554 / 2016 dated 29-Mar-2016] 3) Willis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri. - Mumbai)] 6) COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 7) Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST] 8) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 9) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 8 Security Agency Service 3,615,676 1) ISMT Limited Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [TS-335-CESTAT-2015-ST] 2) CST, Bangalore Vs. Yodlee Infotech (P) Ltd [2015 (39) S.T.R. 695 (Tri. - Bang.)] 3) CCEx Hyd-IV Vs. Deloitte Tax Services India P Ltd [2008 (11) STR 266 (Tri-Bang)] 4) CCEx Meerut Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd [2011 (271) ELT 314 (Tri-Del)] 5) Utopia India Pvt Ltd Vs. CST, Bangalore [2011 (23) STR 25 (Tri-Bang)] 6) Castrol India Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] 7) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] 8) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 9 Management Consultant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 12 Rent-a-cab Operator 963,272 1) Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd [2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-ST] 2) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] 3) JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 13 Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency s Service 762,994 1) CCEx Hyd-IV Vs. Deloitte Tax Services India P Ltd [2008 (11) STR 266 (Tri-Bang)] 2) HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] 3) COMMISSIONER OF S.T., MUMBAI-II Vs. MMS MARITIME (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[2016 (41) S.T.R. 869 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 4) Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Hyderabad-IV [TS-240-CESTAT-2016-ST] 5) Mainstay Teleservices Ltd Vs. CST Bangalore [2015 (39) STR 693 (T-Bang)] 6) CCE, Bangalore Vs. Jubliant Biosys Ltd [2016 (42) STR 729 (T-Bang)] 7) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 8) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri. - Bang.)] 3) CCE Vs. Fine Care Biosystems [2009 (16) STR 701 (Tri-Ahm)] 4) CCE Chennai Vs. Greaves Cotton Ltd [2010 (20) STR 703 (Tri-Chn)] 5) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER Vs ESSAR OIL LTD. [2016 (41) S.T.R. 389 (Guj.)] 6) JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III [2016 (41) S.T.R. 990 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 7) M/s Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax [2016-TIOL-2565-CESTAT-BANG] 8) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 9) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Vs. C.C., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. - Hyd.)] 19 Courier service 118,698 1) HCL Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida[2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] 2) M/s Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax [2016-TIOL-2565-CESTAT-BANG] 3) Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs M/s WNS Global Services [2016-TIOL-1275-CESTAT-MUM] 20 Consulting Engineering Service 71,249 1) Castrol India Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (291) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] 2) Dell Internati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted copies of the relevant documents such as invoices at the time of claiming refunds but the learned consultant asserts that the appellant is in a possession of such documents and in a position to submit the same to make good the deficiency in the documentation. Consequently, we set aside the findings in the impugned orders on this ground and remand the matter to the original adjudicating for a de novo decision on this subject after considering the documents submitted by the appellant. For this purpose, an opportunity of effective hearing may be granted to the appellant to put forth such documentation. 7 (ii) Export Turnover Ratio and Apparent error and double disallowance The learned consultant submitted that for sanctioning of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, the maximum refund amount is restricted to the export turnover ratio i.e., to mean Maximum refund = Value of Exports x CENVAT credit taken Total value of turnover It is the submission of the learned consultant that the authorities below have taken into account the net CENVAT credit availed for arriving at the maximum refund i.e., to mean the gross CENVAT credit taken minus the CENVAT credit utilized. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
