9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. In the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT LEASING, KOTA VERSUS M/S SHUKLA BROTHERS [ 2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon ble Supreme Court have held that the concept of reasoned judgement has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and it is mandatory requirement for procedural law and that the reasoning for a decision should be recorded therein. Denial of CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the address mentioned in the invoices were not the registered address of the appellants - HELD THAT:- The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GE INDIA EXPORTS (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. S.T., HYDERABAD-II [ 2017 (1) TMI 613 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] have held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground of invoices having been issued on unregistered premises of the appellants. In the present case, the CENVAT credit has been taken by the same assessee-appellant and therefore the ground of difference in the address/registered address appearing in the invoices, on which the impugned order had rejected the CENVAT credit is not proper and justified. The impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the output services. The claimant also submitted that the CENVAT credit was available to them under Rule 3 of the CCR of 2004 and since the credit so taken could not be utilized for them under Rule 3 of the CCR of 2004 and since the credit so taken could not be utilized for payment of service tax, they filed the refund application for refund of the accumulated input service tax credit. 2.3 The CENVAT credit availed by the appellants on the various input services on the basis of the invoices / bills submitted by the input service provider were as follows:- Sr. No. Category of taxable input service Total Amount of CENVAT credit (in Rs.) 1 Business Auxiliary Service 73243 2 Business Support Services 269190 3 Chartered Accountant's Services 310879 4 Club or Association Service 3553 5 Company Secretary Service 6496 6 Consulting Engineering Services 269986 7 Courier Agency Services 3853 8 Internet Telecommunication Service 260988 9 Legal Consultancy Service 60028 10 Maintenance or Repair Services 29273 11 Management or Business Consultant's Services 30450 12 Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency's Services 154536 13 Online Informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 as amended. II. I hereby reject refund claim amounting to Rs 9,20,053/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Twenty Thousand and Fifty Three only) filed by M/s Burns & McDonnell Engineering India Pvt. Ltd, for the above mentioned period. III. I refrain from charging interest on ineligible input service as the same has not been utilized by the claimant." 2.6 Feeling aggrieved with the above order dated 07.06.2018, the appellants have preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Navi Mumbai, against partial rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 8,28,276/- (excluding an amount of Rs.91,777/- rejected on account of input services relating to club and association, employee health insurance premium and out of pocket expenses, out of total rejected amount of Rs.9,20,053/-). In the appellate proceedings, learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 08.03.2019 had partly allowed the CENVAT credit of Rs.44,796/- by holding them as eligible for taking as input credit of CENVAT and rejected the other part of the claim made in the appeal by the appellants. 2.7 Being aggrieved with the above Order-in-Appeal dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the judgements of the of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the respective cases mentioned below: (i) mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Bangalore 2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.) (ii) GE India Exports (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.EX. and S.T., Hyderabad - II 2016 (44) S.T.R. 693 (Tri-Hyd) (iii) Commissioner C EX. & S.T., Noida Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.- 2017 (52) S.T.R. 497 (Tri.- All.) (iv) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax Department Vs. Shukla & Brothers - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) (v) Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd., Vs. Union of India and Another- (1976) 2 SCC 981 (vi) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., 2006 - TIOL-111-SC-CUS 5. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the findings made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, with respect to partial rejection of refund claims. Therefore, learned AR prayed that the impugned order is sustainable in law. 6. The short issue for consideration in this appeal before me is to decide whether the amount of refund claim of CENVAT credit, rejected in the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a prescribed period. It no where deals with taking of CENVAT credit, which is governed under the Rule 3 of the CCR, 2004. Further, it is a settled position of law that those grounds which did not find mention in the show cause notice as well, then the department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. 8.2 In the case of Shukla & Brothers (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the concept of reasoned judgement has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and it is mandatory requirement for procedural law and that the reasoning for a decision should be recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement dated 15.04.2010 is extracted and given below: "21. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old address of "Powai" was for single premises and the output service was provided from a single premises. The said address was earlier mentioned in the ST-2 Certificate dated 27.03.2014 as "3rd Floor, Chemtex House, Main Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai - 400076" and subsequently with shifting of their premises to "6th Floor, Godrej IT Park P2,Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai - 400 079", and the same address was amended and show in the revised ST-2 certificate issued on 12.10.2016 by the jurisdictional departmental authorities. Further, there is no dispute with respect to use of input service in the provision of output service; except for the procedural delay in getting the certification w.r.t. correct address. In the self-same appellants for the demands on such grounds, the same was dropped by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in subsequent order dated 28.05.2018. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GE India Exports (supra) have held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground of invoices having been issued on unregistered premises of the appellants. In the present case, the CENVAT credit has been taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
