9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VAT Credit Rules, 2004 of the unutilized credit on the inputs and input services used for providing output services. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 83/2019(R) dated 22.08.2019 had granted substantial refund, but however, rejected a part of it. Aggrieved by the partial rejection, the appellant preferred first appeal, but however, the First Appellate Authority vide order impugned herein allowed refund only in respect of certain services while rejecting the appeal in respect of the other services. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this forum. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Learned Advocate, appeared for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsement Charges, excess Service Tax availed and Duplication of credit/invoice, no finding is given in this regard. 8.1 Following are the services against which the CENVAT Credit availed has been rejected and are being contested by the appellant : * Freight Charges * Plant Rental Charges * Cleaning Charges * Pest Control Services * Payment made under RCM 8.2 On going through the decisions/orders relied upon by the Learned Advocate, I find the contentions of the Learned Advocate for the assessee to be correct as regards the denial of CENVAT Credit availed on some of those services, which has been held to be bad. The same is analysed below. 9. With regard to the denial of CENVAT Credit on Freight Charges, the appellant has claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /orders it has been held that cleaning services are essential for providing output services and therefore, the same would qualify as input service and hence eligible for refund : (i) M/s. RR Donnelley India Outsource Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commr. of Service Tax, Commissioner (Appeals-I) [Orders-in-Appeal No. 211-222/2017 dated 26.04.2017]; (ii) M/s. Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner, C.C.E. & S.T, Hyderabad-IV [2017 (49) S.T.R. 235 (Tri. - Hyd.)]; (iii) M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., C. Ex. and S.Tax, Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 1124 (Tri. - Del.)] 11.2 The ratio laid down in the above decisions/orders are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand and hence, following the above ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 of 2013 & ors. vide Final Order Nos. 23114 to 23130 of 2017 dated 08.12.2017, wherein the co-ordinate Bench has considered various decisions and concluded as under: "7 (iii) Credit availed in particular quarter and payment made in next quarter Learned consultant submits that in the quarter October - December 2008, the refund of CENVAT credit was denied for the reason that the appellant did not make the payments for these input services within the quarter under consideration. It is his submission that the payments for these services were made in the subsequent quarter and hence, such refunds would be allowable in the subsequent quarter but the same has not been considered. We note that even though the payment was not made by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
