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 →

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-Service Tax

2015 (11) TMI 654 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Rebate claim for refund of service tax paid on input services used in export of output services - claim for two units where the centralized registration taken later - export invoice do not contain the details of service provided - Notification No.12/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005 - Business Auxiliary Service/Business Support Service - activity of business process outsourcing - Held that:- If the details of service provided are available and classification can be done on that basis and if the services h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat there is an output service and the same has been exported.

A consolidated ST-3 returns in respect of two registered premises should be acceptable.

Nexus between input and output services and correlation of FIRC are required to be considered afresh and this can be done by the original authority. Nexus can be considered in the light of Apotex Research (Interim Order): [2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE], even though the issue as to whether nexus is required to be consid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s process outsourcing. These activities are liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service/Business Support Service. Appellant filed rebate claim for refund of service tax paid on input services used in export of output services of ₹ 22,08,329/-. The claim was made under Notification No.12/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005. The Notification was issued under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Revenues claim has been rejected on the ground that it is time barred in terms of Section .....

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 service has not been provided; and there is no nexus between several input services and services exported. 2. As regards limitation under Section 11B, the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. : 2012 (281) E.L.T. 227 (Mad.). In this case, it was held that time limit under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 was originally prescribed in Notification No.41/94-CE but in the subsequent Notification No.19/2004-CE pre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

goods are exported, the Central government may, by Notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the Notification. Explanation Export includes goods shipped as provision or stores for use on board a ship proceeding to a foreign port or supplied to a foreign going aircraf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n that both the Rules are pari materia except for substitution of taxable service in place of goods. Therefore I consider that the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras would apply to the facts of this case as regards limitation. 4. As regards the second ground that the claim should have been made separately for two registered premises, the decision in the case of M/s. Biocon Ltd.: 2014-TIOL-1646-HC-KAR-CX has been relied upon. In the case of service provider, unlike the case of Central E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

part. These submissions would show that these grounds of separate registration and jurisdiction cannot be considered as valid in this case. 5. Another ground taken is that export invoice do not contain the details of service provided and therefore Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules have not been followed. As regards this ground, appellants have submitted that benefit cannot be denied on the ground of technical lapses. 6. In my opinion, if the details of service provided are available and classificati .....

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