9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I, CHENNAI VERSUS REED ELSEVIER PRIVATE LIMITED, CUSTOM, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI [2017 (4) TMI 1234 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund - refund cannot be rejected on this ground - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services was declared as zero The assessee has submitted the proof that the assessee and the recipient of the service are distinct person. 2. After due process of law, the original authority dropped three grounds proposed for rejection of the refund claim and rejected the refund claim only on one ground that the premises has not been registered by the appellant before availing the credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing declaration and therefore the proposal for rejection of the refund claim on this ground is not correct. With regard to the second ground that the service recipient and assessee are the same entity, it was clarified by the adjudicating authority that both these are different and distinct entities. In regard to the ground for rejection that the appellant has not mentioned the quantum of expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said issue stands covered by the decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. Ecare India Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (52) STR 246 (Mad.) and Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. Reed Elsevier Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (8) GST 355 (Mad.). 4. The ld. AR Shri R. Subramaniam supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot appealed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 6.1 The issue that remains for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for refund for the credit availed before obtaining registration of the premises. The said issue stands covered by the judgment relied by the ld. counsel for the appellant. Following the same, I am of the view that the rejection of refund claim can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
