TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intenance of capital goods - held that:- services used in repair and maintenance of capital goods can be said to have direct nexus with the output service. - appellant has made out a prima facie case. When the assessee having centralized billing and accounting system, non-registration of branch office would not come in the way of availment of Cenvat credit. Since no contrary decision has been placed before me, on this ground also appellant has made out a prima facie case. Joint ownership of property - service tax on renting - Payment of service tax by the appellant after dividing the rent on its own portion - prima facie case in favor of appellant - stay granted. - ST/908-909/2011 - 515-516/2011 - Dated:- 15-6-2011 - Shri B.S.V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived by them was in respect of car parking and common areas and this had no direct nexus at all with the software exports. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CST v. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (16) S.T.R. 198] to submit that the Tribunal has taken a view that the services used in repair and maintenance of capital goods can be said to have direct nexus with the output service. Ld. DR could not show any contrary decision to the decision cited by the ld. Chartered Accountant which is of Division Bench. I find that on this ground itself, appellant has made out a prima facie case. 3. The second ground on which the refund claims were rejected is that the services were not rendered from a registered premise. Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot rendered from a registered firm and nowhere it has been stated that the service was not rendered from the premises at all. I find that this issue is not very clear and all the relevant details are not available. It is also not known whether any evidence is available with the appellant to show that the service was rendered from the ground floor. Further in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aero Products v. CST [2011 (22) S.T.R. 522 (Tri.-Bang.)], the ld. Commissioner could not have travelled beyond the show-cause notice in the revision proceedings. This aspect also will have to be considered in detail. In these circumstances, on this issue also, appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
