9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken, Appellant submits that both the issues are now settled through various decisions of this Tribunal which were not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). Needless to mention here that FIRC receipt date is held to be taken for the purpose of comparison and slight mismatch in numericals could be due to various factors including typographical error, in which case name of the party issuing and receiving the service, exact amount etc. can be accepted as relevant factors for consideration of refund. On Service Tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism on the very next month of the quarter in which service was taken, there are force in the submission of learned Counsel that the decision of Tribunal in GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHAVNAGAR [ 2008 (2) TMI 376 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and M/S INDIA CEMENT LTD., VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, TIRUPATI [ 2018 (5) TMI 603 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] could have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding the issue. Rejection of refund solely on the ground that original documents were unavailable, which Appellant claims to have submitted before the Deputy Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or none submissions of original documents even at the stage of second round of litigation after being remanded by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and from October, 2016 to December, 2016 for an amount of Rs.1,29,50,527/- paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism in January, 2017 post the end of quarter made on 20.02.2019, 13.01.2020, 05.06.2020, 29.01.2020 and 12.10.2020 respectively are assailed before this Forum by the Appellant. 3. Fact of the case is identical in respect of all these appeals Appellant WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. is a multinational engaged in the business of process outsourcing services for its customers in India and Abroad. It operates from SEZ/STPI registered units at various locations in India including Mumbai, Nasik, Pune etc. It had obtained service tax registration under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). As an export oriented unit, it could not utilised CENVAT Credit of Service Tax taken on input services used for export of BAS. It sought for refund for 10 different periods under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rule read with Notification No. 27/2012- CE(NT) and submitted declarations duly certified by statutory Auditor as was mandated by the notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mishra further submitted that issue being identical Appellant is entitled to the refunds that has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 22.01.2018. With reference to judgment of this Tribunal passed in the case of Microsoft Research Lab India Pvt. Ltd. by the Bangalore Bench in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20265-20266 of 2021 and K Line Ship Management India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019-TIOL-100- CESTAT-MUM. He further submitted that it is not the correct position of law to test the eligibility of input services used for providing output services while granting refund and the Department is not permitted to look into the requirement of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 at the time of sanction of refund. Per contra leaned Authorised Representative Mr. Anand Kumar tried to justify the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dealing with each individual case of input services and sough for confirmation of the same. 5. In respect of those 10 appeals, we are of the considered view that eligibility of the disputed credits have already been settled in the favour of the Appellant in its own case reported in 2016 (44) STR 454 (Tri.-Mum.) and its par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel that the decision of Tribunal reported in 2016-TIOL-3217-CESTAT MUMBAI, orders passed in the case of Gujarat Pipavave Port Ltd. in Appeal No. ST/135-136/2007 and India Cement Ltd. reported in 2018 (5) TMI 603 could have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding the issue. 7. In respect of Appeal No. ST/85973/2020 the rejection of refund was solely on the ground that original documents were unavailable, which Appellant claims to have submitted before the Deputy Commissioner refund at Gurgaon and even had gone to extent of approaching Hon'ble Bombay High Court against rejection of their refund claim for want of original documents, which was allegedly misplaced at the Deputy Commissioner level at their Gurgaon office. As could noticed from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Division-VI, CGST and CX, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate passed on 05.07.2018 rejecting 6 refund applications of Appellant filed way back in-between 2005-2007, on the request of the Manager of the Appellant Company request letter was sent to Gurgaon Service Tax Authorities by the Assistant Commissioner but no documents were received from them, for which in the absence of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
