9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative and perused the records. 4. The issue that falls for consideration in this appeal is regarding the refund of the amount of service tax paid on the various services received by the respondent claiming that these services were utilised/ for rendering exported output services. The adjudicating authority had partially allowed and partially rejected the refund claims and held that few services of which refund claims are filed cannot be co-related. The First Appellate Authority has gone into detail as to each and every service is detail and allowed the appeal of the respondent and granted relief. Revenue is aggrieved by the First Appellate Authority's order of allowing the appeal of CENVAT credit on Event Management service, Busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Nos. 3,5,10 of the Table in Annexure-I of the impugned order, on the ground that the services had no nexus with the output service The services have been received in connection with conferences, business meetings, for induction programs, skill enhancement of employees; and held admissible in Coca Cola (India) Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2009-TIOL-449-HC-ST] The services is consumed for organising events such as staff offsite, service awards, ERD awards etc., meant to attain higher efficiency level for delivery of output. Held admissible in Willis Processing Services Vs. CST, Mumbai-II [2015 (38) S.T.R. 169 (Tri. Mumbai)]; HCL Technologies Vs. CCE, Noida [2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. Del.)]; Accenture Services Vs. CST, Mumbai [2015 (40) S.T.R. 719 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order, on the ground that the services had no nexus with the output service Services of consultant availed for overall business process, guidance in specific business function like training, supply chain, planning of workstation layout, seating, space utilization, and preparation of documentation for management of the business. Service held admissible in Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Ltd., [2014 (34) S.T.R. 617 (Tri. Bang)]; Mainstay Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CST, Bangalore [2015 (39) S.T.R. 693 (Tri. Bang.)]; Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Pune-I [2015 (37) S.T.R. 321 (Tri. Mumbai)]. Denial of credit/rejection of refund to that extent, legally not sustainable, and set aside with consequential relief. In my considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
