Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Emmvee Toughened Glass & Photovoltaic Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax

2017 (6) TMI 795 - CESTAT BANGALORE

100% EOU - Refund of CENVAT credit - Banking and Other Financial Charges - Cargo Handling Services - denial on the ground that all the input services are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods - Held that: - both the input services viz. Banking and Other Financial Charges and also Cargo Handling Services fall in the definition of input service as held in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Limited [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the input service definitio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant Shri Mohammed Yusuf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg Appellants have filed six appeals arising out of two impugned orders dated 26.10.2012 and 14.12.2012 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund of cenvat credit in respect of two input services viz. Banking and Other Financial Charges and Cargo Handling Services. Since in all the appeals, the issue is identical, therefore all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of the refund clai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d exporters of excisable goods viz. Solar Photovoltaic modules falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails certain input services for the purpose of manufacturing the impugned goods for export and the appellants have filed six refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The adjudicating authority after following the due process rejected the refund on the ground that all the input services are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim with respect to two services viz. Banking and Other Financial Charges and Cargo Handling Services is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly considering the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that the impugned order is agains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oval only eligible for refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. He further submitted that the impugned order does not dispute the eligibility of these services as input services but only rejecting the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. He further submitted that as per the definition of input service any service which is used in or in relation to the business of manufacturing shall be eligible as input service credit. The Banking and Other Financial Services are used for the services .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngalore 2011 (21) S.T.R. 460 (Tri.-Bang.) c) Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I 2012 (276) E.L.T. 94 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4.1. He further submitted that in all these case laws it has been clearly held that the Bank Commission charges fall in the definition of input service as the same is used in relation to business. Further the appellant is a 100% EOU and they have claimed the refund only in respect of input services that are directly used for export of goods and they have also enclosed sample c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on, he relied upon the following decisions: a) Kuntal Granites Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2007 (215) E.L.T. 515 (Tri.-Bang.) b) Nov Sara India (P) Ltd. 2012 (286) E.L.T. 461 (G.O.I) c) Heera Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2012 (280) E.L.T. 514 (Tri.-Bang.) d) Cauvery Stones Impex Private Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem 2010 (257) E.L.T. 151 (Tri.-Chennai) e) Adani Pharmachem (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot 2010 (20) S.T.R. 386 (Tri.-Ahmd.) f) Rawmin Mining And Indus. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhavnagar-I 2009 (13) S.T.R. 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version