Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 378 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – input service - mandap-keeper service - security agency service - courier service - manpower recruitment service - rent-a-cab scheme operator service - transport service - CA service - insurance service - management consultancy service - management, maintenance and repair service – nexus with output service – receipt of services – consumption of services – Held that: - as regard the distribution of services, as per the statement made by the appellant, it was distributed in proportionate on principle of seats in individual unit. This method of distribution appears to be correct and the same cannot be discarded. Input service invoice – correct address not mentioned – input service – no nexus with output service – Held that: - if there is any error in the invoice, to satisfy correctness of the credit, department can very well verify books of accounts to ascertain whether invoice were accounted for in the respect of unit and if it is found correct then irrespective of mention of incorrect address refund should be allowed - there is no dispute that input service was received and used by the respective unit . Invoice – service tax registration – Held that: - this is a clerical error on the part of the service provider, however if the service tax amount is mentioned, merely because registration number is not appearing, refund cannot be denied. Refund allowed - Before sanctioning the refund, Adjudicating authority can verify the documents – matter remanded to the Original adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant
|