9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department that office at Plot No. Y-14 has also been shared with the other company is not supported by any evidence and hence cannot be accepted merely on presumption basis. On the same count, there is no reason to deny credit on general insurance services availed by the appellant at their office premises i.e. South City Pinnacle - Credit allowed. Manner of calculation of refund as per Rule 5 of the Credit Rules - HELD THAT:- As per the formula prescribed in Rule 5 of the Credit Rules, refund amount need to be ascertained by applying the ratio of value of export turnover to the total turnover on the net CENVAT Credit amount . The said net CENVT credit amount is the total of credit availed on inputs and inputs services as reduced by the amount in terms of Rule 3(5C). The said Rule 3(5C) is the amount to be paid by the manufacturer of excisable goods for corresponding inputs used for manufacture of goods on which duty has been remitted under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules. The said Rule 3(5C) has no relevance in the given case of assessee who is a service provider and not the manufacturer - there cannot be any question of making any deduction of the amount of cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovable property services and consequential refund thereof, (ii) Admissibility of credit of ₹ 9,29,646/- on general insurance service and consequential refund thereof, (iii) Manner of calculation of refund as per Rule 5 of the Credit Rules and (iv) Entitlement of interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act (as also made applicable to Service Tax) on delayed refund amount 3. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. Written submissions and additional documents submitted by the appellants have also been perused. 4. The learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant company submitted that credit on item No. (i) has been denied by the Department on the ground that the office premises in respect of which rent has been paid relates to premises No. Y-14 which is used both by the appellant company as well as other company, namely, PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd which is factually incorrect. He submitted that the rent alongwith Service Tax thereon has been paid to the landlord, South City Projects (Kolkata) Ltd. for premises namely South City Pinnacle (for occupying 8th to 13th floor) which is solely u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentions that they have rendered renting of immovable property services to the appellant in respect of rented premises i.e. South City Pinnacle situated at Plot No. X1-1. In view of the said factual matrix, there is no reason to dispute the receipt of services by the appellant in the absence of any contrary finding. The objection raised by the Department that office at Plot No. Y-14 has also been shared with the other company is not supported by any evidence and hence cannot be accepted merely on presumption basis. On the same count, there is no reason to deny credit on general insurance services availed by the appellant at their office premises i.e. South City Pinnacle. I accordingly allow the credit on both the said services. 7. With regard to dispute No. (iii) for manner of computation of eligible refund, it is noted that as per the formula prescribed in Rule 5 of the Credit Rules, refund amount need to be ascertained by applying the ratio of value of export turnover to the total turnover on the net CENVAT Credit amount . The said net CENVT credit amount is the total of credit availed on inputs and inputs services as reduced by the amount in terms of Rule 3(5C). The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanctioning refund under Rule 5 of the Rules. 11. There is a basic fallacy in the premise on which the contention of Revenue is based. Cenvat credit is nothing else but credit for duty paid by the supplier of inputs, which are dutiable goods manufactured by the supplier or dutiable services rendered by the service provider. In principle such goods/services when utilised for further manufacture or providing service which are dutiable already carry the duty paid component as a part of its price/value, and hence the duty payable on the ultimately manufactured goods/services rendered stands reduced to the extent of duty already paid on the inputs. Thus the duty paid on inputs by the supplier has already been actually received by the exchequer. Therefore, this contention is, to say the least, misconceived. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, admittedly the refund has been ordered under Rule 5 of the Rules and there was a delay in sanctioning the refund, in the circumstances, the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act would clearly be attracted and as such the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of clause (c) of the proviso to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
