9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on various input services used for services exported by them during the impugned period under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012. The original authority after following the due process, sanctioned some portion of the refund claims and rejected the balance amount on various grounds. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,982 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 rejection with regard to export turnover of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) was not raised and the Order-in-Original has travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice. The show-cause notice has not raised any concern over non-consideration of services under BAS as export of service. Further, rejection of refund on account of export of service under the category of BAS, the learned counsel submitted that the services provided by the appellants are limited to marketing the goods of the foreign group companies to potential customers. The services provided by the company neither include processing of the orders procured from the prospective customers of the foreign group companies nor include the purchase and supply of the said goods by the company. Once the orders are placed by the customers to the foreign group companies, the service of the company ends ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 2013 7 No.008R/2014 dated 31.12.2014 October - December 2013 9 No.900R/2014 dated 31.12.2014 January - March 2014 4.3 In view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the services rendered by the appellant under the category of BAS is Export of Service and therefore, the appellants are entitled to refund of CENVAT credit. 5. The next ground on which refund has been denied is on account of "inconsistency in the computation of amount eligible for refund" and the total amount of rejection in all the five appeals is Rs. 18,66,890/-. Learned counsel further submitted that while computing the eligible amount of refund, the learned Deputy Commissioner has made an apparent error and has not followed the formula as prescribed under the said Notification. He further submitted that Rule 5 prescribes to apply the export turnover ratio on "Net CENVAT Credit" and the term "Net CENVAT Credit" has been defined as "Net CENVAT Credit means total CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services by the manufacturer or the output service provider reduced by the amount reversed in terms of sub-rule (5C) of Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections for rejection of refund is on account of nexus with regard to various input services. 6.1 The first service is the "Event Management Service" and the learned counsel has submitted that Event Management Service falls in the definition of „input service‟ as has held by many decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court and he has cited the following decisions in support of his submission: * Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (32) STR 95 (Tri.- Mum.) * CST vs. WNS Global Services: 2016 (44) STR 454 (Tri.-Mum.) * Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (37) STR 768 (Tri.-Mum.) * Bank of Baroda Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (37) STR 488 (Tri.-Mum.) * Delphi Automotive Systems P. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2014 (36) STR 1089 (Tri.- Del.) * Castrol India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (291) ELT 469 (Tri.-Ahm.) * J.P. Morgan Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST: 2016 (42) STR 196 (Tri.- Mum.) * HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (40) STR 369 (Tri.-Del.) * Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011 (24) STR 645 (Tri.- Bang.) 6.2 As far as the "Real Estate Agents" and "Supply of Tangible Goods" services are concerned, the learned counsel did not press for these services, bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
