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 →

Viteos Capital Market Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II

2017 (11) TMI 425 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Refund claim - export of services - Event Management Service - denial on account of nexus - Held that: - in the impugned order there is no discussion with regard to Event Management Service and its nexus with the output service and further there is no discussion regarding inconsistency in computation of the amount eligible for refund - Event Management Service in the present case is an input service as is covered by various decisions relied upon by the appellant. - For the purpose of removin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order dated 17.08.2016 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of eight appeals. The present appeal relates to the refund of cenvat credit on Event Management Service and also inconsistency in computation of amount eligible for refund. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in providing Information Technology Enabled Business Process Outsourcing Services and is a 100% EOU registered with the STPI for export of Information Technology Software Service .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o certain services. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner and the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order, partly allowed the refund by holding the input services as eligible. But the learned Commissioner has not passed a speaking order with regard to Event Management Service and on incorrect application of export turnover ratio. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the impugned order is not a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

He further submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order with respect to nexus of Event Management Services and incorrect application of export turnover ratio on balance of cenvat credit rather than net cenvat credit without affording appropriate reasoning under law. He further submitted that it has been consistently held by various Courts that it is not sufficient to give conclusions alone but it is necessary to give reasoning in support of the conclusions arrived at. For this he r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in Erection & Commissioning Services, Sale of space for advertisement/online data access and Advertising Agency Services is ₹ 76,950/- (Rupees Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only), the company has chosen not to file appeal against the same considering the legal cost involved. However with regard to Event Management Service, the amount involved is ₹ 9,54,939/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Nine only) and therefore the company has prefe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red for value events which are organized to further the business development and growth of the company. The company incurs these expenses for events such as Technical Day Functions, Value Events which are organized to further the development of the employee and build upon the organizational values. These events result in betterment of the individual performance of the employee for the overall growth of the organization and the appellant also submitted the invoice. Learned consultant further subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.-Mum.) e) Delphi Automotive System P. Ltd. Vs. CC, CE & ST, Noida - 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1089 (Tri.-Del.) f) Castrol India Limited Vs. CCE, Vapi - 2013 (291) E.L.T 469 (Tri.-Ahm.) g) J.P. Morgan Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai [2016 (42) S.T.R. 196 (Tri.-Mum.) h) HCL Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCEx, Noida - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 369 (Tri.-Del.) i) Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Ltd. Vs. CCE, LTU, Bangalore - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 645 (Tri.-Bang.) He also submitted that there is inconsistency in the comp .....

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