9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) ORDER Per : B.S.V. MURTHY The appellant filed refund claim for CENVAT credit taken on input services under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) read with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules on the ground that the accumulated credit could not be utilised by them. The period involved is October 2008 to February 2009. The refund claim, after due p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced below:- 9. In this case, M/s. GAP, U.S.A., do not have any branch or project or business establishment in India. The service in relation to procurement of goods being provided by the appellant are entirely meant for M/s. GAP, U.S.A. and the service in question, - business auxiliary service, covered by Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 have obviously been used by M/s. GAP, U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apex court has observed that service tax is a destination based tax. In that case also, the service provided was classified as business auxiliary service. In my opinion, in the appellants case also, a similar stand can be taken. Accordingly this ground for rejection of refund claim cannot be sustained. Further I also have to observe that while the Commissioner has considered the provisions of Exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is that appellant could have utilised the accumulated CENVAT credit. The learned counsel submitted that no doubt appellant had paid service tax in cash as observed by lower authorities but she submits that the relevant ST-3 returns would show that the entire amount of service tax was paid by them as a recipient of service which in accordance with law is required to be paid in cash only. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
