Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1813 - CESTAT MUMBAIRefund of accumulated CENVAT credit in cash - Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that since the respondent fit into the definition of ‘ intermediary ’ therefore, the services provided by the appellant do not fall within the scope ‘export service’ - period April, 2015 to March, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The facts are not in dispute are that the appellant are engaged in providing ‘man power recruitment/supply agency’ services to their overseas client Seaspan Canada under an agreement with them. There is no stipulation either under Article 2 or under any of the clauses of the agreement, whereby it could be inferred that the Printed by Bolt PDF (c) NCH Software. Free for non-commercial use only. the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) at para 6 of the impugned order that they were supplying man power on behalf of their overseas client is factually incorrect and not supported by any evidence. This is the only reasoning advanced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the refund order where under the original authority after verification of all other conditions prescribed under the said notification 27/2012 CE(NT) dated 19/06/2012 issue d under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Cred it Rules, 2004 sanctioned the refund - The allegation of the department as observed above that the appellant is a n ‘intermediary’ is without any basis, hence, cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|