9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e field in the absence of any contradictory finding by the Appellate Court. Therefore, in reiterating what has been observed by me in respect of Appellant s earlier appeal that was decided on 05.07.2019 in WARBURG PINCUS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-II, MUMBAI [ 2019 (7) TMI 337 - CESTAT MUMBAI] that judicial precedent is to be carried forward for maintenance of certainty and predictability in the decision making process that has already held the input services availed by the Appellant as eligible credits and in view of the fact that Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) permits refund of such unutilised credits of the exporters, the following order is passed. The order is hereby modified in holding that the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same credits as inadmissible against which Appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Mumbai who disposed of the same vide his common order dated 28.12.2018 by sanctioning refund to the tune of Rs.2,22,87,989/- and rejecting refund of Rs.13,55,221/- on the ground that CENVAT Credit availed on Club or Association Services, Services by Airconditioned Restaurants, Sponsorship Services, Event Management Services, Short Term Hotel Accommodation Services, Mandap Keeper Services, Convention Services and Cable Operator Services were not eligible input services as those have no nexus with the services exported by the Appellant. Legality of the said order only to the extent of rejection of refund is assailed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... galore and in the case of M/s. Microsoft Research Lab India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North reported in 2021 (8) TMI 806 - CESTAT Bangalore and for Event Management Services reliance is placed by him in the case of M/s. 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru East reported in 2021 (8) TMI 814 CESTAT Bangalore, M/s. Moneygram India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Mumbai West reported in 2020 (3) TMI 744 CESTAT Mumbai and Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangaluru East reported in 2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 425 (Tri. Bang.). Further, in placing reliance on the final order passed by this Tribunal on dated 13.03.2018 in his own appeal reported in 2018 (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he had allowed credits in respect of 7 categories of inputs out of total 15 categories of CENVAT Credits and each item is individually dealt by him through a speaking order that contains detail of the ground of rejection which had not confined it solely to nexus but also to the impact on the performance of the company in the absence of non-availment of such services, for which he sought no interference of the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Having regard to the submissions made by both the sides I am of the considered view that the issue concerning rejection of refund against credits on inputs taken by the Appellant engaged sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
