9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is order that such services were received for organising investment conference at Trident Hotel and appellant had duly explained the reason for holding of such conference that comes within the purview of the decided case laws referred in respect of admissibility of such credits - both those credits are admissible credits for which refund was to be granted as appellant had rightly justified the nexus, which according to the policy/circular was also not required to be established in case of export of services - Refund allowed. Refund claim - rejection also on the ground that Billing address is different in invoice and ST-2 return - HELD THAT:- Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that billing address, as found in the invoice was cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid under reverse charge mechanism, the same should have been allowed on the strength of valid challans produced by the appellant. However, he conceded that in respect of other services, invoices could not be produced at the time of hearing, for which he produced sample invoices before this Tribunal during the hearing to arrive a right decision - Without verification of those invoices which would amount to mini trail, and without acceptance of those invoices as additional piece of evidence, since those are not in conformity to Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, it is considered proper to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination of the entitlement of the appellant only in respect of denial of refunds on those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and output, billing address is different in the invoice and ST-2 return address mentioned, non description of category of services and non submission of invoices. Appellant is before this Tribunal challenging the legality of such refusal of refund claim on inputs services namely event management, legal consultancy service, Chartered Accountant service, commercial coaching and training service, repair and maintenance service etc. availed in different quarters, which were refused on the above noted grounds. 3. Rejection of refund on the ground that no nexus between input and output service exist - Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Abhijit Saha submitted that learned Commissioner has observed that no nexus exist between eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ministry of Finance in respect of Union Budget 2012 dated 16.03.2012 wherein simplified scheme for refund of CENVAT credit was highlighted wherein it was clearly pointed out that the new scheme of substituted Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not require the kind of co-relation that is needed at present between exports and input services used in such exports and to allow refund on tax paid on any goods or services that qualify as input service in the ratio of export turnover to total turnover, he pointed out that despite such guideline appellant had also demonstrated the nexus between such input and output but no refund was allowed to it in respect of event management services. 3.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such conference that comes within the per-view of the decided case laws referred above in respect of admissibility of such credits. I am therefore of the considered view that both those credits are admissible credits for which refund was to be granted as appellant had rightly justified the nexus, which according to the policy/circular was also not required to be established in case of export of services. 4. Billing address is different in invoice and ST-2 return The ground of rejection on Chartered Accountant service was for the reason given at para 6.5 of the point No. 15 of the Order-in-Appeal. One service provider Opera Associates invoices were discarded on the ground that billing address is different from the address ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stand was taken before the lower authorities for which appellant is required to justify the stand before the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Non submission of invoices In point No. 17 to 19 at para 6.5 of the Order-in-Appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had denied several CENVAT credits to the appellant on the ground that invoices were not submitted in respect of those services. Learned Counsel for the appellant, in referring to judicial decisions reported in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax Vs. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar [2017 (47) STR 78 (Tri.-All.)] , Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Vs. Essel Propack Ltd. [2007 (8) STR 609 (Tri.-Mumbai) submitted that challan is a valid document under Rule 9 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
