Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 376 - AT - Service TaxRefund claims - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Renting of Immovable Property service - Commercial Training or Coaching service - Telecommunication Services - Management or Business Consultancy service - rejection of refund on the ground that these input services were ineligible for the purpose of availing input service credit - Held that: - appellants have admitted that they have paid the service tax liability in respect of renting of immovable property by mistake - even if the appellants have paid or suffered tax liability by mistake, they cannot claim the refund thereof under Rule 5 ibid but, under other facilitating provisions in the law - refund rightly rejected. Commercial training or coaching services - Held that: - this relates to training of nominated employees - this would be an eligible input service, and in particular, they are also not barred by exclusion clause of Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004 - refund allowed. Tele-communication service - Held that: - concerning landline/mobile telephones installed at the residence of the employee, I am of the considered opinion that the credit should be permitted - there is no allegation that they have not been used for the purpose of the appellant's business or for that matter, only for the personal use and consumption of an employee - refund allowed. Management or business consultancy service - Held that: - What has been denied is the additional charges for transportation claimed by the consultancy - Appellant has not produced any contract or agreement wherein such transport charges are required to be paid, in addition to the consultancy charges - the credit availed in respect of such transport charges will not be eligible for the purpose of refunds under Rule 5 ibid - refund rejected. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|