Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 612 - CESTAT BANGALORERefund of unutilized CENVAT credit - export of service under the category of BAS - Place of Provision of Service Rules - Held that: - In view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant, the services rendered by the appellant under the category of BAS is Export of Service and therefore, the appellants are entitled to refund of CENVAT credit - credit allowed. Refund also denied on account of “inconsistency in the computation of amount eligible for refund” - Held that: - the original authority has not applied the formula in a correct manner on account of which the refund amount has been substantially reduced - for the subsequent period, the original authority has correctly applied the formula to determine the eligibility of refund and those orders are on record produced by the appellant - the original authority will reconsider and apply the correct formula for the purpose of determining the refund claim of the appellant - matter on remand. Refund claim - Event Management Service - Real Estate Agents - Supply of Tangible Goods services - Business Exhibition Service - Convention Services - denial on account of nexus - Held that: - Event Management Service falls in the definition of „input service‟ as has held by many decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court - reliance paced in the case of Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2013 (8) TMI 601 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. As far as the “Real Estate Agents” and “Supply of Tangible Goods” services are concerned, the learned counsel did not press for these services, being small amount. Business Exhibition Service - Held that: - this service falls in the definition of „input service‟ as it is integrally connected with the output service - credit allowed. Convention Services - Held that: - this is also related with the business of the company and fall in the definition of „input service‟ as held in the case of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2014 (10) TMI 452 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. Refund claim also denied on the ground of procedural non-compliance - Held that: - the appellants have submitted the invoices and they have annexed the copies of the invoices along with the appeal papers but the same were not considered by the authorities and the appellant is still ready to produce the invoices if the matter is remanded to the original authority - matter on remand. Refund also rejected on the ground that the “invoices were addressed to unregistered premises” - Held that: - the decision of the Karnataka High Court in mPortal India wireless Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that registration with the department is not a pre-requisite for claiming the CENVAT credit - refund allowed. Refund of ₹ 30,415/- were rejected on account of “apparent error in the Order-in-Original” - Held that: - this is an apparent error and the appellant is entitled to refund of this amount ₹ 30,415/-. For the purpose of quantification of the refund, the matter is remanded back to the original authority to verify the invoices and other documents and thereafter decide the refund claims - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|