Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 682 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - Unutilized Cenvat Credit of input services - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006 - Export of Consulting Engineer Services and Information Technology Services to foreign entities - 100% EOU - input invoices are addressed to unregistered premises of appellant - input services do not have nexus with the output services. Held that:- I am convinced of the arguments and explanation put forward by the appellant about each service and their necessity / nexus with the output services. - The Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd., UP Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT] answered the reference stating that the word ‘include’ does not have a restrictive meaning. It is submitted that the authorities below have wrongly applied the judgment laid in Maruti Suzuki case. It is also his submission that Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 does not mandate that the premises of service recipient has to be a registered premises. It is sufficient that the name and address of service recipient is shown in the invoice. Therefore, it is found that the rejection of refund is not just or proper and the appellant is eligible for refund of the amounts shown. - Decided partly in favour of appellant with consequential relief
|