9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an amount of Rs. 72,930/- that was held to be time barred. 2. Factual backdrop of the case, in a nutshell, is that appellant has a company incorporated in India and it has been engaged in the business of Portfolio Management and Investment Advisory Services, Advising Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPI) and Managing Portfolios of Indian Individual Investors. In respect of services offered to foreign institutions FPI, refund claim on input services against CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid for export of services between 01.01.20210 and 27.02.2010 to the tune of Rs. 5,12,396/- against renting of premises was rejected by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) along with input services pertaining to General Insurance to the tune of Rs. 46,772/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) including an observation that appellant is a passive holding Company of the Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) which has no existence of its own was an observation made without any material on record and without any argument laid in that behalf by either of the parties for which the order is liable to be set aside as palpably erroneous. 4. In response to such submissions learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department Shri Saikrishna Hatangadi with reference to the clarificatory Circular dated 13.05.2011 including Notification No. 09/2005 dated 03.03.2005 etc. argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that Circular of 2011 had clarified a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning paragraph, what is accruing outside India is the benefit in terms of promotion of business of a foreign company. Similar would be the treatment for other Category III [Rule 3(1)(iii)] services as well." Basing on which this Tribunal has passed several orders including in the case of the Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai Vs. M/s Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019 (12) TMI 232 (CESTATST/Mumbai) and M/s. Blackstone Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South in Service Tax Appeal No. 85281 of 2019 order dated 22.11.2019. Moreover, as could be noticed during hearing of the appeal and subsequent filing of proof on 29.10.2011 by way of additional evidence, appellant had filed an application for rectificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
