9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which are required for providing the resultant output service as per the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 4,26,79,323/- (Rupees Four Crore Twenty Six Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Three only) on 20/09/2016 for refund of unutilized cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on various input services said to have been used for providing output services exported outside India relating to the period October 2015 to December 2015 as per the provisions of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18/06/2012 read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After following the due process, the original adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 21/06/2018 granted refund of Rs. 4,15,49,358/- (Rupees Four Crore Fifteen Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Eight only) and rejected the balance claim amounting to Rs. 11,29,965/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five only) considering it to be ineligible cenvat credit on certain services. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the order of the original authority except allowing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. Vs. CGST, Mumbai West 2019-TIOL-100-CESTAT-MUM. * Accelaya Kale Solutions Ltd. V. Commissioner of CGST, Thane - 2019 (369) E.L.T. 803 (Tri.-Mumbai) * Maersk Global Services Centres (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCGST, Navi Mumbai - 2019-VIL-783-CESTAT-MUM-ST * C.C., C.E. & S.T., Hyderabad-IV V. Hexagon Capability Center India P. Ltd. -2017 (4) G.S. T.L. 14 (Tri.-Hyd.) 3.1. She also submitted that the Department cannot dispute appellants' eligibility to credit during the refund proceedings and the credit if any sought to be disallowed, has to be disputed by initiation of separate proceedings for recovery under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. She also submitted that the fact that the appellants were availing credit on the impugned services was in the knowledge of the Department and the appellants have been regularly filing their ST-3 returns for the relevant period and the Department at no stage raised any objections or disputed the availment of cenvat credit and it was only during the adjudication of the refund claim that the Department took the stand that the credit was ineligible. In this regard, she referred to the following decisions: * M/s. Gemini Software Sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Limited V. Commissioner - 2015 (3) TMI 346 - (CESTAT Bangalore) * CST, Bangalore V. Jubilant Biosys Ltd. - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 729 (Tri.-Bang.) 3.3. Further as far as Rent-a-Cab Services is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the company employees both male and female employees who work in two shifts and as a safety measure, the appellant is duty bound to drop the employees back at home after the second shifts for which cabs are engaged and used and hence these services are used for providing output service and the same gets covered under the main clause of the definition of 'input service'. For this, she relied upon the following decision: * M/s. Aban Offshore Ltd. V. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-III) - 2020-TIOL-1377-CESTAT-MUM. 3.4. For Commercial Coaching & Training Services, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant being a knowledge based industry and for providing advice and consultancy on engineering design and research services, the engineers have to be trained consistently and on a regular basis so as to equip them with the necessary technical knowledge and keep them abreast of the latest developments for provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services which are mentioned as 'NA' in cenvat credit register, appellants did not avail the credit and were not part of the refund application made. The Department has failed in disallowing credit which had not been asked for by the appellant. She further submitted that the Board vide Circular 120/1/2010-ST dated 19/01/2010 in the context of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has instructed that in case of incomplete invoices a liberal view has to be taken. She also submitted that intention of the Government is not to export duties and taxes along with the export of goods or services. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that with regard to Rent-a-Cab service, the appellant is not entitled to the refund because the said service has been excluded from the definition of 'input service' by way of exclusion clause and for this service, he relied upon the following decisions: * M/s. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Tax, Puducherry - 2018 (10) TMI 765 - CESTAT Chennai * Deutsche CIB Centre P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.Tax-II, IV, V Mumbai, CST-Mumbai (E) - 2019 (8) TMI 261 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
