Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. Versus C.C. & C.E. & S.T. -Noida

2015 (11) TMI 466 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of refund claim - refund of unutilized Cenvat credit of Service Tax - nexus with output services (export) - Held that:- The ground on which the refund is denied is that the accumulated input service credit did not pertain to the period during which output services were exported for which the refund claim is made. - appellants had taken the credit on receipt of the input service invoices of PWC and thereafter, the services were exported and then, the refund claim was filed. From the Boards .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be allowed of credit accumulated in the past period and claimed in a subsequent quarter . Therefore, in terms of the Board Circular stated above and also the decisions of the tribunal in Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd. and Am Docs Business Services (P) Ltd., (supra), I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/50672/2014-ST(SM) - Final Order No.51953/2015 - Dated:- 19-6-2015 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) For the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e subsidiaries of the appellants namely, M/S. Forgu GmbH, Germany. After receiving necessary reports of due diligence, the appellants provided their advice to M/s Forgu GmbH Germany regarding the acquisition. The input services thus provided by M/s. PWC and received by the appellants was exported by appellants to M/s Forgu, GmbH, Germany, under Business Support Services in terms of the agreement entered between the parties. For the input services provided by M/s.PWC to the appellants as stated a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the invoices it was observed that appellants have filed claim for the quarter January 2012 to March 2012 and had submitted invoices dated 12.8.2011, 30.9.2011, 13.9.2011, 08,10,2011 and 31.7.2011. The export billing showed export of services on 28.03.2012. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim holding that no refund of Cenvat credit is admissible to the party in terms of Notification No. 05/2006 CE (N T) dated 14/03/2006 read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the claim period. 4. The Ld. and D R reiterated the findings in the impugned order and relied on the Notification No. 05/2006 CE (NT) dated 14th of March 2006. He contended that the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claim for the reason that the input invoices submitted by the appellant pertains to period prior to the period of refund claim. That as per paragraph 4 of the above notification, the refund is allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer or provider of ou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e appellant submitted that this aspect has been clarified by C. B. E.C. in para 3. 3 of Circular No. 120/01/2010 S.T.dated 19/01/2010, which is reproduced below; "3. 3 quarterly refund claims[para (d) about]; As regards the quarterly filing of refund claims and its applicability, since no bar is provided in the notification, there should not be any objection in allowing refund of credit of the past period in subsequent quarters. It is possible that during certain quarters, there may not be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#8377; 66 lakh (as his export turnover is 66% of the total turnover in the quarter) from the Cenvat credit of ₹ 1 crore availed in April-June quarter. The illustration prescribed under para 5 of the Appendix to the notification should be viewed in this light. However, in case of service providers exporting 100% of their services, such disputes should not arise and refund of Cenvat credit, irrespective of when he has taken the credit, should be granted if otherwise in order. Such exporters .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the input service irrespective of the period when the credit was taken. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides and perused the records. For the services provided by M/s. PWC to the appellants for due diligence, PWC raised invoice for the same and charged service tax thereon. The appellants took the credit of the same as input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As the appellants could not utilise the said credit, they filed the refund claim for the amount .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version