9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. 2. Factual back drop of the case, in brief, is that Appellant is a company engaged in providing business advisory services, solely to M/s. Warburg Pincus, USA and it sought for refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,86,61,581/- under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2004 for the period October 2006 to September 2009 out of which the above referred service and "Mandap Keeping Service" were held as inadmissibility by refund sanctioning authority. The Commissioner of Service Tax(Appeals)-I, Mumbai Zone allowed refund on Mandap Keeper Service but refused refund on Service Tax paid on Club and Association Services. Appellant assailed the order of rejection of such refund on Club and association Services on the ground that credit was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting on business related matters for which Corporate Membership of Bombay Gymkhana was taken and hotels were used to hire Banquet conference rooms and therefore the credit was admissible. 4. Further submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that solely borrowing the ratio of Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd. judgment reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 482 (Tri. - Bang.) in an erroneous way, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had refused the refund but the said judgment is clearly distinguishable as in para 9.1 of said judgment, it has been clearly reflected that membership of any employee of the assessee in Bangalore club is not an activity relating to business but in the case of Appellant it was Corporate Membership taken for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Services was made on the basis of the findings that Corporate Membership was taken in Bangalore Club but Appellant failed to substantiate that the membership was taken for official purpose or was related to business activities for which the decision of the Commissioner holding that membership was taken for the employees was held tobe valid. In the Appellant's case, on the other hand the Commissioner had not disputed that the membership was not taken for business activities of the Appellant but he accepted the contention of the Appellant in Para 3(ii) of his order that respondent was required to get proper statistical data for proposed investment opportunities and the same can be gathered through participation in associating itself in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
