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 →

Commissioner of Service Tax Versus Kyocera Wireless (India) (P.) Ltd.

Denial of refund claim - Non-registration - Held that:- Tribunal has not committed any error since the issue is no more res integra and is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CST [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. - Denial of Refund claim - Non-production of sufficient proof for the input services used for the purpose of output services - Held that:- the conclusion recorded by the original authority as well as by the first .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed, the further consequential order may be passed. As the matter is pertaining to the refund of the claim of 2009, it would be just and proper to direct the original authority to undertake the aforesaid exercise within stipulated time limit. - Decided in favour of petitioner by way of remand - C.E.A. NO. 33 OF 2015 - Dated:- 8-3-2016 - JAYANT PATEL AND MRS. B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ. For the Appellant : C. Shashikantha For the Respondent : G. Shivadass, JUDGMENT 1. Admit. 2. Mr. G. Shivadass, learned .....

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 to be that as per the respondent, it is a STPI unit engaged in the business of providing software engineering and support services, including development of application software for accessories for commercial models, evaluation installment of software drivers, texts on mobile hand sets manufactured by KWC, USA and KWC, Japan. The respondent filed a refund claim on 9/2/2009 for the period from April 2008 to September 2008 seeking refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of ₹ 41,49,327/-. The As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) and vide order dated 12/11/2010, the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the view of first appellate on the point of registration as well as on the point of availability of CENVAT Credit based on the documents for input services as well as output services and vide order dated 12/11/2010, the appeal was dismissed. The matter was further carried in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal found that on the point of registration, the obj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

present appeal is before this Court. 6. We have heard Mr. C. Shashikantha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. Shivadass, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. As such, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by all the lower authorities could be bifurcated into two parts. One, regarding denial of refund on the ground of non- registration and the other, is denial of refund for not producing sufficient proof before the authority for input service and output s .....

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 Tribunal did not give a clear finding as to which documents were lacking or as to whether the documents were sufficient or not. As such, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the original authority had nothing to say about the sufficiency of the documents or otherwise. In our view, the said finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the record of the original authority as well as the appellate authority as both have found that the conditions of input services and output services are not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ority as well as by the appellate authority. He submitted that as per the respondent, all documentary proofs were produced and therefore, if the ground of registration and non-registration is taken away, the respondent could be entitled for the refund of the amount as CENVAT Credit. 11. Whereas, Mr. Shashikantha, learned counsel for the appellant contended that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the original authority for consideration of each document produced by the respondent f .....

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