Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 378 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (9) TMI 378 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Rejection of refund claim - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 input service - mandap-keeper service - security agency service - courier service - manpower recruitment service - rent-a-cab scheme operator service - transport service - CA service - insurance service - management consultancy service - management, maintenance and repair service nexus with output service receipt of services consumption of services Held that: - as regard the distrib .....

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 were accounted for in the respect of unit and if it is found correct then irrespective of mention of incorrect address refund should be allowed - there is no dispute that input service was received and used by the respective unit . - Invoice service tax registration Held that: - this is a clerical error on the part of the service provider, however if the service tax amount is mentioned, merely because registration number is not appearing, refund cannot be denied. - Refund allowed - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

claim of ₹ 36,84,611/- of the appellant filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the following grounds:- (a) ₹ 22,13,819/- the Cenvat credit of input services transferred from head office at Nashik unit was not proved to be received and consumed for providing output service which exported, therefore there is no nexus of input service attributed to Cenvat Credit with the export service. (b) ₹ 5,49,209/- correct input service invoice was not produced therefore nexus bet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

C.A. Service, Insurance Service, Management consultancy Service, Management maintenance and repair service have been used for providing output service therefore nexus of this services are clearly established with the output service which were exported. 2.1 He further submits that dispute is related to credit transferred from head office was that the head office is not registered as ISD, however this dispute is settled that credit can be transferred even prior to the registration of ISD. He submi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

co-relation required for transfer of credit from head office to the units. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) CCE Bangalore Vs. Ecof Industries Ltd[2011(271) ELT 58]. (b) Doshin Ltd Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2013(288) ELT 291(Tri. Ahmd)] (c) DEMOSHA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., DAMAN[2014 (34) S.T.R. 758 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] He submits that while distributing the services from head office to the various units, the distribution w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

services distributed by the head office not established is incorrect. As regard the credit of ₹ 5,49,209/- on the ground that invoices bearing incorrect address, he submits that certain input invoices which were pertaining to unit I, address of unit II was mentioned by service provider and also vice versa. He submits that it is an error on the part of the service provider, who inadvertently mentioned the incorrect address while raising the invoice. However credit was correctly availed by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai[2008(221) ELT 583(Tri. Mumbai)] (d) Collector of C. Ex. Vs. D.C.M. [1990(50) ELT 271(Tri. Delhi)] As regard the non mention of Service Tax registration on certain input invoices, he submits that this technical error committed by the service provider of the input services, there is no dispute that service tax amount was mentioned on the invoice of the service provider therefore merely because service tax registration of the service provider was not mentioned on the inp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by both the sides. 5. I find that as regard the refund of ₹ 22,13,819/- in respect of services distributed by head office of the appellant to them, Ld. Commissioner denied the refund on the ground that there is no nexus between input services and the export services for the reason that receipt and consumption of services was not established. I am of the view that as regard the distribution of services, as per the statement made by the appellant, it was distributed in proportionate on prin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roportionately to various units. I find that the appellant is on better footing that they have distributed the credit to various unit on proper basis on principle of seats therefore in my view there cannot be any dispute for distribution of the services and availment of the same by the appellant, therefore Ld. Commissioner has not appreciated the proportionate allocation of credit in the individual unit. As regard denial of refund of ₹ 5,49,209/- on the ground that invoice do not bear corr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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