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 →

M/s Cummins Technologies India Private Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Bhopal

2016 (9) TMI 897 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

SEZ unit - Refund claim - Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20/6/2012 - period involved is October 2011 to December 2012 - service tax paid on the services provided to them for authorized operations as per various notifications issued from time to time - provisional services rendered by Chartered Accountant as well as those of training of employees - Held that:- I have perused invoices issued in respect of the CA services. There are three invoices issued to M/s Cummins India Ltd., I find that al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Held that:- I find that the claim of refund of service tax made under such invoices by the CHA has been denied by the authorities below for the reason that the invoices issued by the service provider, i.e. CHA, do not indicate the full amount of service tax. However, it is evident that all the service providers engaged by the CHA have all render service on account of the appellant SEZ unit. The issue is no more res-integra and have come up before the Tribunal in the past and in such cases the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hnical) Shri Narender Singhvi, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.R. Sharma, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03/5/16 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. The appellant is a SEZ unit in Pithampur (M.P.) and is allowed to procure goods and services without payment of any tax as per the provisions of the SEZ Act and Rules. Services which are consumed by the SEZ are not required to suf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is order dated 24/12/13 rejected a part of the claims made by the appellant to the extent of ₹ 3,31,549/- in respect of the following services :- S. No. Service Amount (Rs.) Issue 1. CHA services 1,55,243 The invoices issued by the service provider do not show charging of any Service Tax. 2. Professional services (Chartered Accountant) 87,503/- These services are not covered in the list of approved services and thus not consumed in authorized operations. 3. Training of employees etc. 86,85 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

service tax will be payable in respect of services used by the SEZ foreign authorized operations. In the light of these provisions, Revenue should not have restricted their claim in as much as the services have been utilized by the appellant s SEZ unit ; (2) The CHA services for which the refund claim to the extent of ₹ 1.55 lakh has been rejected have been specifically declared by them to the Development Commissioner and the same stands approved by them as services used for authorized op .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

favour of the appellant unit. The invoices issued by these service providers also clearly show that these services have been rendered to the SEZ unit. The CHA only acted as a direct agent who engaged and paid for the services and in turn collected the payment from the appellant. They have also placed reliance on the following case laws to support their arguments : (i) Sopariwala Exports vs. CST, Mumbai I reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 884 (Tri. Mumbai) ; (ii) Madura Garments Exports Ltd. vs. CCE & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nologies Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 657 (Tri. Ahmd.) ; (viii) Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 200 (Tri. Ahmd.) (ix) Barclays Technology Centre India (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune III reported in 2015 (38) S.T.R. 35 (Tri. Mumbai) and (x) Intas Pharma Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 543 (Tri. Ahmd.). 2. I learned DR, on the other hand, reiterates the view taken by the authorities below. He further 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

viding for claiming of refund by the SEZ units and developers from the Jurisdictional Authorities. The present dispute is with reference to the Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20/6/2012 which prescribed the procedure for claim of these refunds and the conditions under which it should be granted. The notification broadly prescribes that refund of service tax shall be paid for services received by the unit or developer of the SEZ provided that the services are consumed within the SEZ. The servic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction of refund claims in respect of provisional services rendered by Chartered Accountant as well as those of training of employees is totally unjustified. I have perused invoices issued in respect of the CA services. There are three invoices issued to M/s Cummins India Ltd. dated 30/12/10, 17/3/11, 01/6/11, I find that all the three invoices are issued to M/s Cummins India Ltd. However, it is clearly mentioned that it is to the account of M/s Cummins Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpanied by invoice dated 26/9/11 issued by M/s Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. referring to various port related services rendered in favour of the appellant and indicates payment of service tax to the extent of ₹ 797/-. The original invoice issued by M/s UPS is also accompanied by a few other invoices issued by various service providers on account of the appellant clearly indicating the service tax paid thereon. I find that the claim of refund of service tax made under such invoices by .....

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 as follows :- 4. As regards the denial of refund to the appellant on the ground that the bill has been issued by the CHA and not by the service provider. I find that the issue came before the Tribunal in the case of Durhan Spintex & Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad reported 2012 (28) S.T.R. 366 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein it was held that, what is required to be seen is whether Service Tax was paid for required service under admissible category or not. In th .....

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 Tribunal cited by the appellants the refund of Service Tax paid in respect of THC & B.L. Charges is admissible to them. 5. In respect of the refund of Service Tax paid on Rail Freight and Inland Haulage Charges, invoices have been issued by the various Rail operators which clearly show the container number and name of the appellant and corresponding invoice number. The invoice number is also mentioned in the Shipping bill which can facilitate correlation of the goods with the bill submitte .....

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