TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side India and performed in India on behalf of client located outside India. Therefore, it is the case of export of services. Accordingly, it was held that no Service Tax is leviable. CENVAT credit - whether the appellant have rightly taken CENVAT Credit for ₹ 1,49,11,944/- being the Service Tax charged by their Authorized Service Centres, which have provided service to the appellant under the warranty period on sale of their products during the period April, 2006 to June 2007? - Held that: - service tax paid on expenses incurred for providing warranty services are entitled for input service credit - no extended period of limitation is invokable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/322/2009-EX[DB] - ST/A/70475 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company, Korea. It appeared to Revenue that the appellant have taken Cenvat Credit on the basis of invoices issued by Authorized Service Centre, for providing service to the customers of the appellant, as after the sales of the goods (within the warranty period), as the said services is being provided after sale of the excisable goods. Therefore, the Cenvat scheme do not cover under the definition of input service under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. And also same have no nexus with manufacture and clearances of the products. Accordingly, it was proposed to disallow Cenvat Credit of ₹ 1,49,11,944/-, being the Cenvat Credit availed on services received from Authorized Service Centres and with proposal to levy service tax of ₹ 1,33,21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arranty service on the product owned by the appellant, we find that the said issue is also covered in the precedent ruling of this Tribunal being Final Order dated 01.11.2016 reported at 2016-TIOL-844-CESTAT-ALH-ST, wherein the same issue of service tax Credit on service received from Authorized Service Centres was in question, between this very appellant and it was held that service tax paid on expenses incurred for providing warranty services were entitled for input service credit. Under the facts and circumstances, we hold that no extended period of limitation is invokable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned. The appellant will be entitled to consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with Law. (Dictate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
