9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Tangible Goods services - Business Exhibition Service - Convention Services - denial on account of nexus - Held that: - Event Management Service falls in the definition of „input service‟ as has held by many decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court - reliance paced in the case of Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2013 (8) TMI 601 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. As far as the “Real Estate Agents” and “Supply of Tangible Goods” services are concerned, the learned counsel did not press for these services, being small amount. Business Exhibition Service - Held that: - this service falls in the definition of „input service‟ as it is integrally connected with the output service - credit allowed. Convention Services - Held that: - this is also related with the business of the company and fall in the definition of „input service‟ as held in the case of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2014 (10) TMI 452 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. Refund claim also denied on the ground of procedural non-compliance - Held that: - the appellants have submitted the invoices and they have annexed the copies of the invoices along with the appeal papers but the same were not considered by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), who also allowed certain refunds on certain input services and denied on other grounds. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the factual position and the legal position. He further submitted that the appellants are challenging the impugned order rejecting the refund claims on the following grounds. a) Not a speaking order; b) Order is contrary to allegations made in show-cause notice; c) Export of service under the category of Business Auxiliary Services; d) Inconsistencies in computation of eligible amount of refund; e) Procedural non-compliances; f) CENVAT credit availed for unregistered business premises; and g) Input services having nexus with the output. The details of the appeals are given below in the tabular form. Appeal No./ Particulars ST/20208/ 2017 ST/20209/ 2017 ST/20210/ 2017 ST/20211/ 2017 ST/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses 43,987 99,714 - - - 1,43,701 Excess credit claimed 3,740 - - - - 3,740 Double entry 5,381 - - - - 5,381 Apparent error in the Order-in-Original - - - 30,415 - 30,415 Grand Total 14,88,024 17,88,212 2,57,059 10,77,228 15,41,982 61,52,504 4.1 He further submitted that the impugned order passed by both the authorities is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is also beyond the scope of show-cause notice. He further submitted that in the show-cause notice, the reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Paul Merchants Ltd. Ors. Vs. CCE: 2012 (12) TMI 424 (Tri.- Del.) Analog Devices India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: Final Order No2.05-208/2016 dated 10.11.2016 Sun Micro Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (19) STR 26 (Tri.- Bang.) KSH International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2010 (18) STR 404 (Tri.-Mum.) 4.2 He further submitted that for the earlier periods vide various Orders-in-Original, the Department has allowed refund on BAS services and he has annexed the following Orders-in- Original. Sl. No. Order-in-Original No. Period 1 No.075R/2014 dated 05.04.2014 April June 2012 2 No.111R/2014 dated.08.10.2014 July September 2012 3 No.112R/2014 dated 08.10.2014 October December 2012 4 No.113R/2014 dated 08.10.2014 January March 2013 5 No.114R/2014 dated 08.10.2014 April June 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er urged that for the subsequent period, the original authority passed various orders and has correctly followed the formula as prescribed under the said Notification and he has cited the following OIO. Sl. No. Order-in-Original No. Period 1 No.143R/2014 dated 10.08.2016 April June 2015 2 No.144R/2014 dated.12.08.2016 July September 2015 3 No.183R/2014 dated 30.12.2016 October December 2015 4 No.184R/2014 dated 30.12.2016 January March 2016 5.2 After considering the submissions of the counsel on this point and after examining the material on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the appellant, I am of the considered view that the original authority has not applied the formula in a correct manner on account of which the refund amount has been substantially reduced. Further, I note that for the subsequent period, the original authority has correctly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n raised by the appellant is procedural non-compliance on account of which refund has been denied. Under this category, refund of ₹ 9,23,906/- has been rejected on the ground that the appellants have not submitted certain invoices and the documents and some of the invoices were incomplete. In reply to this, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants have submitted the invoices and they have annexed the copies of the invoices along with the appeal papers but the same were not considered by the authorities and the appellant is still ready to produce the invoices if the matter is remanded to the original authority. The learned counsel further submitted that it is a settled law that substantive right should not be denied on account of procedural non-compliance. 8. He further submitted that the refund of ₹ 1,43,701/- was rejected on the ground that the invoices were addressed to unregistered premises . In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in mPortal India wireless Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore: 2012 (27) STR 34 (Kar.) wherein it has been held that registration with the department is not a pre-requisite for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
