TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the appeals partly anc remanded the matter to the original authority with the direction to requantify and allow the refund accordingly. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is more or less common, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of appeals are given herein below:- Appeal No. Period Amount claimed Amount rejected ST/21529/2017 October to December 2013 ₹ 2,95,87,053/- ₹ 76,69,756/- ST/21524/2017 January to March 2014 ₹ 2,97,38,465/- ₹ 81,31,374/- ST/21526/2017 April to June 2014 ₹ 2,35,28,336 ₹ 33,29433/- ST/21531/2017 July to September 2014 ₹ 8,04,58,885/- ₹ 29,12,471/- ST/21532/2017 October to December 2014 ₹ 5,34,69,581/- ₹ 22,48,011/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to May 2011 and these were rejected on the ground that there is no evidence that refunds were not sought earlier on the same invoices. The assessee has claimed that obtaining refunds is itself legal right. But the refund has been denied on the ground of administrative inconvenience and possibility of loss of revenue and fraud. ii. In appeal No.29/2017, the export turn over for which documentary evidences were not produced towards relisation of foreign exchange, it was held that the claim has to be calculated on the reduced total export turn over. Since the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence towards realization of such foreign exchange, the total turn over was rightly reduced by the original authority. iii. Regarding the rejection of some invoices on the ground that the details and nature of services are not mentioned in the invoices. iv. On the issue of service tax registration number / payment details not being mentioned on the invoices, the appellant has submitted that these are procedural lapses on the part of their vendor and they should not be penalized for this. v. Regarding the issue of invoices not produced / missing invoices, the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2015(40) STR 800 (Tri. Bang.)], emcon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC [2013(31) STR 441 (Tri. Bang.)], Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. [2016(42) STR 321 (Tri. Mum)]. These services are allowed by Ld. Adjudicating authority for the period July to September 2015 October to December 2015. Translation Services These Services are availed for translation of foreign language to English. The appellant submits that these services are essential and connected with the operations of the appellant. Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2015(3) TMI) 346 - CESTAT, Bangalore] Pokarna Ltd. 2013 292 ELT 316 (Tri. Bang.)] CST, Bangalore vs. Jubilant Biosys Ltd. [2016(42) STR 729 (Tri. Bang.)] The Id. Adjudicating authority has allowed these services for the period October to December 2015 Management Consultants Services Services are inter alia Consultants Services availed from Mr. Chetan Mittal in the field of scientific consultancy for the health care division. Against the allegation contained in the 010 that these services are rendered to Philips Healthcare, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viders which is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that both the authorities below, appellant could not produce documents to the extent of ₹ 53,57,67,126/- which has been procured by them through DGFT and he has produced those e-BRCs before this Tribunal and has requested that the matter may be remanded back to the original authority with a direction to consider all these documents along the decisions rendered by this Tribunal wherein it has been held that these input services have a direct connection with the output services as held in various cases cited supra. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly rejected the refund on certain input services as the appellant failed to establish the nexus between the input services and output services exported. The learned AR further submitted that both the authorities below have rightly followed the norms prescribed under Notification No.27/2012 dt.18/06/2012 for claim period July to September 2013. 8. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of records and various decisions relied upon by the appellant and also various d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or the manufacturer had not been registered during the period when credit was taken. This Issue no longer res integra since in the case of m Portal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. vs. C.S.T., [Bangalore [2012 (27) S,T.R. 34 (Kar.)] = 2011-TIOL-928-HC-KAR-ST Hon 'ble High Court of Karnataka has taken a view that registration with department is not a pre-requisite for claiming the Cenvat credit. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which also provides that a manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of service shall be allowed to take credit and nowhere the word 'registered' is found. If the intention was not to allow the Cenvat credit when the unit or the service provider was not registered Ru/e 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules would have read as a 'registered manufactured or registered service provider. Therefore, the rejection of the c/aim for refund of Cenvat credit is not admissible when the unit was not registered cannot be upheld. 6.11. Issue No. 11: Condonation of omissions. in documents as per the provisions of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view was taken. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below for better appreciation. 6. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. The export of software at the relevant point of time was not a taxable service. However, the assessee had paid input tax on various services. According to the assessee a sum of ₹ 435985/- is accumulated Cenvat credit. The Tribunal has categorically held that even though the export of software is not a taxab/e service but sti// the assessee cannot be denied the Cenvat credit. The assessee is entitled to the refund of Cenvat credit. Similarly insofar as refund of Cenvat credit is concerned, the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for refund an accumulated Cenvat credit Therefore bar of limitation cannot be a ground to refuse Cenvat credit to the assessee Learned A.R on behalf of the Revenue submitted that this decision was given in the case of 100% E.O.U. and therefore applying the same to other units which are not 100% E.O.U, was not correct. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Repro India Ltd vs. Union of India [2009 (235) E,L.T 614 (Bom.)] = 2007-TIOL-795-HC-MUM-CX has taken a view that even if finished goods are e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
