TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re received at Bangalore unit but the payments have been made from Pune bank account which is the Head Office of the appellant. It is also a fact that FIRCs have been received at Pune for the services rendered from Bangalore unit of the appellant. In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 1086 - CESTAT MUMBAI], it was observed by the Tribunal that when the invoices in the name of the company were issued in the name of branch office and the payments were accounted at the Head Office having ISD registration, then there is no legal infirmity. Rejection of refund not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20407/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21185/2018 - Dated:- 21-8-2018 - Hon'ble Shri S. S. Garg, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns centralized billing and accounting system at the Dapodi unit, the centralized service tax registration has been obtained and Bangalore unit is also included in the centralized registration and ISD registration for the purpose of service tax in respect of the taxable services provided from the Bangalore premises. Further services provided by the appellant from its Bangalore premises to service recipients outside India qualify as export of services in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules 1994. For rendering taxable services that are exported, the appellant used various input services which are covered in the definition of input services as per the provisions of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and they are used for providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t service providers. iv. Export invoices and FIRCs are addressed to/from Pune address and as such the appellant has failed to establish that they have made any export services and received foreign remittances from Bangalore unit. v. The exact nature of service cannot be ascertained and it also cannot be ascertained that the service provider and recipient of service are not merely establishments of a distinct person and hence condition of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules have not been fulfilled. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the learned Commissioner denied the refund of service tax on the ground that the appellant has separate service tax registration with the Bangalore premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies. He further submitted that these facts were clearly mentioned in the statement of facts and were never disputed at any point of time but while passing the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) had made the observation which is factually incorrect. 5.2. As far as non-payment of input service invoices by the Bangalore unit is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, it has not been doubted about the receipt of input service and its utilization by the Bangalore unit in providing the services exported. The only ground on which refund has been denied is that the payment to the input service provider was made from the bank account of Atlas Copco India Ltd. Pune which is the registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TR 751 (Tri. Del.)] e. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2015(38) STR 830 (Tri. Mum.)] f. Sambhaji Ors. Vs. Gangabai Or. [2009-TIOL-79-SC-MISC] 5.3. He further submitted that it is the policy of the Government not to export duties and taxes along with the export of goods and services and that is the fundamental principles as to the reason why the duties are NIL rate where there is an export of goods and services. 5.4. It is his further submission that the amount of refund claim has been debited on 30/11/2015 which can be observed from the CENVAT credit ledger extract already submitted before the authorities below and further the same can be reconciled with the Service Tax Return filed in Form ST3 by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments have been made from Pune bank account which is the Head Office of the appellant. It is also a fact that FIRCs have been received at Pune for the services rendered from Bangalore unit of the appellant. Further I find that in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. cited supra, it was observed by the Tribunal that when the invoices in the name of the company were issued in the name of branch office and the payments were accounted at the Head Office having ISD registration, then there is no legal infirmity. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced herein below:- 6. . . in view of the fact that the branch offices have no separate accounting system and their accounts form part of the head office accounts, which is registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
