Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (11) TMI 1070

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vice and the output services which is not legally sustainable. The appellant have produced various decisions cited supra wherein all these services have been held to be input services and has nexus with the output service, therefore, the denial of refund on lack of nexus is not sustainable in law and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the refund on these input services - the appellant is also entitled to refund of CENVAT credit in respect of Commercial and Industrial Construction Service, Company Secretary and Public Relation Management Service being essential for rendering output service. Refund has been rejected on the ground of non-production of documents - HELD THAT:- Case remanded back to the original authority who will examine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ls is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore, all the three appeals are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The details of the refunds in all the three appeals and other details are given herein below: Appeal No. ST/23727/2014 ST/23728/2014 ST/23729/2014 Period of Dispute July to September 2009 October to December 2009 October to December 2008 Refund claimed ₹ 8,14,222/- ₹ 39,39,034/- ₹ 34,23,481/- Show-cause Notice No. IV/16/564/2010-ST(R)/8611/2010 dated 13.9.2010 IV/16/864/2010 ST(R)/1202/10 dated 21.12.2010 IV/16/832/2009 Ref. Dn.II/859/10 dated 24.12.2009 OIO No. No.879/2011 dt.30.11.2011 No.878/2011 dt.30.11.2011 No.762/2010 dt. 29.12.2010 OIA No. R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith the output service. In this regard, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund on the basis of lack of nexus, non-submission of documents and the debit notes are not proper documents for claiming CENVAT credit and for other procedural irregularities. Ground for rejection Services Involved Input services do not have nexus with output service * Rent-a-cab Service * Pandal and Shamiana Service * Event Management Service * Outdoor Catering Services * Landscape Maintenance * Sewage Treatment Plant * Custom House Agency Service No finding on nexus with respect to input services * Commercial or Industrial Construction service * Company Secretary * Public Relations Management Service Refund eligible on n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce * CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd.: 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.) * CCE, Bangalore vs. Bell Ceramics: 2012 (25) STR 428 (Kar.) * Deloittee Support Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad-IV: 2018 (5) GSTL 393 (Tri.-Bang.) maintained by the Hon'ble AP High Court in 2017 (5) GSTL J197 (AP) Pandal and Shamiana Services * Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2011 (24) STR 645 (Kar.) * City Union Bank Ltd. vs. CGST: 2019 (365) ELT 440 (Tri.-Chennai) * Adani Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. vs. CST, Ahemdabad: 2016 (42) STR 1010 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * CST, Chennai vs. Ford Business Services Centre Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (38) STR 700 (Tri.-Chennai) Event Management Services * Shell India Marketing Pvt. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner (A) has rejected the refund on the basis that debit notes are not the proper document for claiming CENVAT credit. In this regard, she submitted that it is a settled position that credit availed on the basis of debit notes must be allowed. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: * CCE, Jaipur-I vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd.: 2018 (12) GSTL 123 (Raj.) * Unicure India Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida: 2017 (3) GSTL 418 (Tri.-All. * Ad-manum Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore: 2017 (346) ELT 142 (Tri.-Del.) 5.5 She also submitted that refund cannot be denied on the ground that there is no address of the assessee on certain invoices. For this, she relied upon the following decisions: * GE India Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cating the refund claim application, since in such matters of admissibility, the Department is mandated to take recourse under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules. For this, she placed reliance in the case of K. Line Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai: 2017-TIOL-2406-CESTAT-MUM. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund claims on certain services on the ground that there is no direct nexus between the input service and the output services which is not legally sustainable. The appellant have produced various decisions cited supra wherein all these services .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates