9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service recipient is located outside India and further as per Rule 3 of Place of Provision Rules, place of provision of the impugned services will be the location of the service recipient. Also, the appellant have been receiving foreign inward remittances on their export invoices which were coming to the appellant in terms of JV agreement from a designated bank account specifically opened for the said purpose - the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of export of services simply on the ground that payment has been routed through a 3rd party which is also based outside the country. Denial of refund on Works Contract Service - HELD THAT:- It is found from various invoices submitted by the appellant that the said input service was used towards renovation of the premises occupied by the appellant and the said premises was used towards provision of output services and therefore eligible for the purpose of claiming cenvat credit - Further the Board s circular dt. 29/04/2011 relied upon by the appellant has clarified that the input service used in modernisation, renovation or repair is eligible for credit and the same thing has been held in the case of M/S ION EXCHANGE I LTD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd filed on 21/12/2017 28/3/2018 SCN date 31/01/2018 12/04/2018 OIO dt. 30/04/2019 30/04/2019 OIA No. and date No.333 334/2020 dt. 25/06/2020 2.2. During the verification of the claims, certain discrepancies were noticed by the original adjudicating authority, hence, show-cause notices were issued in respect of both the refund claims. Appellant filed parawise reply to those show-cause notices and after following the due process, the original authority vide Orders-in-Original both dt. 30/04/2019 rejected the entire refund claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The original authority has also rejected the refund claim amount of ₹ 10,550/- and ₹ 2,814/- by holding that the services on w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side India. The services are rendered to the respective service recipient as per the service agreement who are located outside India and thereby they have satisfied the condition laid down in Rule 6A(1)(b) and are entitled for the refund. She further submitted that in the present case, the support services rendered by the appellant are not covered under the specific provisions of Place of Provisions Rules and therefore the Rule 3 would apply, whereby the place of provision of these services will be the location of the service recipient. She further submitted that the service recipient i.e. WMGS BVI and WMGS Netherlands are located in British Virgin Islands and Netherlands respectively, which is outside India and hence the place of provision of service rendered by the appellant is outside India and has satisfied the condition laid down in Rule 6A(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. She further submitted that foreign inward remittances for the export invoices were received from WMGS Investment LLC and this arrangement is in accordance with the JV agreement executed between WMGS BVI and WMGS Netherlands. Further in respect of JV agreement, the term WMGS Investments LLC bank account ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE [2019-TIOL-508-HC-KERALA] iii. Reliance Industries ltd. Vs. CCE [2014-TIOL-1486-CESTAT-Ahmedabad] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has not complied with the conditions as provided in Rule 6A(1)(b) and Rule 6A(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Learned AR further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has given detailed reasons for rejection of the refund claims on the ground that the appellant could not prove the export of service and further the learned AR submitted Works Contract Service has been excluded from the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) as there is no nexus with the resultant output service rendered by the appellant. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant have entered Sourcing Service Agreement with WMGS Services Ltd. Located in British Virgin Island and WMGS Netherlands located in the Netherlands and as per the JV agreement, the appellant was directed to raise the invoices in the name of WMGS China JV and accordingly the appellant have been raising invoices directly to W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anbaxy Laboratories (supra), appellant is also entitled for grant of interest on delayed refund claim beyond the period of three months. It is pertinent to note that the apex court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) has held as under: 9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the Court, then for the purpose of this Section the order made by such higher Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
