9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAT:- All the services on which the refund has been rejected have been consistently held to be input services in various decisions relied upon by the appellant. Moreover, the Department has not questioned the service on input services at the time when the CENVAT credit was taken and a per the decision of this Tribunal in the case of K Line Ship Management [ 2018 (12) TMI 1481 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , the Department is not permitted to question the same at the time of claiming refund. In view of the clarification given by the Tax Research Unit of CBEC vide their letter dated 16.3.2012, the amended Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules does not require correlation between the output service exported and the input services used in such output services expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .ST/20260/2020 1 Refund claim ₹ 1,24,65,993/- ₹ 2,28,32,774/- 2 Refund sanctioned in OIO by adjudicating authority ₹ 1,22,28,624/- ₹ 2,26,96,851/- 3 Refunded rejected in impugned order ₹ 2,37,369/- ₹ 1,35,923/- The details of services on which refund is rejected and disputed in this appeal is as follows: Sl. No. Input service category for which refund disallowed Disputed in ST/20259/2020 Disputed in ST/20260/2020 1 Business Auxiliary Service √ √ 2 Commercial Coaching or Training Services √ √ 3 Public Management Relations Service √ √ 4 Video Production Agency Service √ √ 5 Sponsorship Service √ 6 Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .-Mum.) * CCE, Bangalore-II vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd.: 20212 (26) STR 514 (Kar.) * CCE, LTU, Chennai vs. Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd.: 2015 (39) STR 3 (Mad.) * Lifelong Meditech Ltd. s. CCE, Gurgaon-II: 2016 (44) STR 626 (Tri.-Chan.) * Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, LTU, Bangalore: 2016 (46) STR 69 (Tri.-Bang.) * Orient Bell Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida: 2017 (52) STR 56 (Tri.-All.) * Wipro Ltd. vs. CCE, Pondicherry: 2018 (10) GSTL 172 (Mad.) 5. The next service is Mandap Keeper and Restaurant Service, the learned counsel did not press for refund of service tax under this service because the learned DR raised an objection as these services has been specially excluded from the definition of 'input service' as prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring video for training of employees and also in induction training of new recruits. 8. As far as Sponsorship Service is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the purpose of sponsorship is to create awareness of the company to prospective clients and candidates for recruitment of quality talent. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida : 2015 (40) STR 369 (Tri.-Del.). 9. Learned counsel further submitted that Rule 5 of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 clearly provides that the appellant can claim refund of unutilized CENVAT credit and at the time of refund, eligibility of the credit cannot be questioned. In support of this, he relied upon the decision in the case of K Line Ship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services used in such output services exported. For this, he relied upon the following decisions: * Final Order No.A/88016-88034/2018 dated 26.9.2018 in the case of K Line Ship Management India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CGST Mumbai West. * Final Order No.60550/2019 dated 16.5.2019 in the case of M/s. Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CGST, Gurugram. * Final Order No. A/87022-97030/2018 dated 1.8.2018 in the case of M/s. MSCI Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CGST, Mumbai East. * Final Order No. A/87465-87468/2019 dated 30.8.2019 in the case of M/s. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CGST, Mumbai Central. * Final Order No.87490-87491/2019 dated 18.11.2019 in the case of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. vs. CGST, Mumbai East. 11. On the other hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
