TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tickets for the travelling of its employees for official meetings with the client at various locations. Those meetings are conducted to enable to the Appellant to understand the needs of the overseas client and to deliver qualitative services to them. These meetings are essential for the business of the Appellant and in its absence, the business of the Appellant is going to be affected - this input service as availed by the Appellant in connection with its business are essential for the provision of output services and therefore the Appellant is entitled for refund of Service Tax on the said services - refund allowed. Storage and Warehousing Services - Banking Financial Services - Business Auxiliary Services - Held that:- These services are essential and there is nexus between the input services and output services and therefore for these services also the Appellant is entitled for refund - refund allowed. Denial of excess refund claim to the Appellant for the quarters October, 2014 to December, 2014 and January, 2015 to March, 2015 - denial on account of non-reversal of erroneous credit availed by the Appellant in their ST-3 return - mis-match between the opening and clos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant and learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner has erred in rejecting the refund claim filed by the Appellant under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. He further submitted that so far as the claim towards input services viz. General Insurance Services , Air Travel Agent Services , Banking Financial Services , Storage and Warehousing Services and Business Auxiliary Services are concerned, the same have already been allowed by the learned Commissioner in the Appellant s group entity Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. He also produced the copy of the said order. 4. Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. During the course of hearing learned Counsel for the Appellant has also produced a chart indicating the amount in issue against each head, the said chart is taken on record and is extracted as under:- Sr. No. OIO Date and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst them in the event of any fraud is committed in the investee company. Ultimately the said financial liability has to be borne by the Appellant, therefore in order to protect themselves, the Appellant has taken an insurance policy from Tata AIG in its own name with respect to claim that may be made against its employees who are appointed as Nominee Director/Alternate Director in the investee company. The said insurance policy is taken so that the insurance company can pay the losses of the Appellant which may arise from the arrangement of appointing its employee as Nominee Director/Alternate Director in the investee company, during the course of providing services to its overseas clients. Therefore, it is clear that the insurance policy is taken by the Appellant in relation to the financial risks during the course of business that may arise upon the appointment of the employees as Nominee Director/Alternate Director in the investee company and not for the personal consumption of the employees. The said input service is used in the course of provision of output service and has not only a nexus with the output services but is essential for the business of the Appellant, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) GSTL 99 (Tri.-Bang.) has held that the Appellant therein is entitled for refund and there is nexus between the input services and output services. 8. Now I come to the issue of denial of excess refund claim to the Appellant for the quarters October, 2014 to December, 2014 and January, 2015 to March, 2015. The same was denied by the Authorities below on account of non-reversal of erroneous credit availed by the Appellant in their ST-3 return. It is admitted fact that the Appellant had erroneously availed excess CENVAT credit to the tune of ₹ 7,70,687/- in the month of August, 2014 at the time of filling Service Tax return for the period April, 2014 to September, 2014. According to the Appellant they had identified this error after the due date for revision of Service Tax return for the aforesaid period. But while filing the Service Tax return for the period October, 2014 to March, 2015 the Appellant had reversed the CENVAT credit which was erroneously taken by them during the month of August, 2014 from the total availment for the month of October, 2014 and the CENVAT credit availmnet for the said month of October, 2014 was done in the following manner:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services tax liability for the period discharged through utilisation of CENVAT credit, from the amount of CENVAT credit availed by the Appellant during the period. The submission of the Appellant seems to be reasonable that nowhere in Notification No. 27/2012 or in Rule 5 ibid there is a requirement to consider the amount of unutilised credit for the period. The calculations/tables have been produced by the Appellant for comparing the amount of CENVAT credit balance available on the last day of the quarters, on the day of filling the refund claim and also the quantum of refund claim worked out as per Notification No. 27/2012- CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. From a perusal of the same, I am of the view that the Appellant has claimed the amount which is lowest among those three heads. 10. A similar issue has come up before this Tribunal in the matter of Commissioner CGST, Mumbai Central Excise Vs. Morgan Stanley Investment Management Pvt. Ltd. and this Tribunal vide order No. A/85850/2018 dated 20.02.2018, after taking into consideration the Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 and Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 passed the following order:- xx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s + Export turnover of services) _______________________ Total turnover x Net CENVAT credit Where,- (A) Refund amount means the maximum refund that is admissible; (B) Net CENVAT credit means total CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services by the manufacturer or the output service provider reduced by the amount reversed in terms of sub-rule (5C) of rule 3, during the relevant period; (C) Export turnover of goods means the value of final products and intermediate products cleared during the relevant period and exported without payment of Central Excise duty under bond or letter of undertaking; (D) Export turnover of services means the value of the export service calculated in the following manner, namely:- Export turnover of services = payments received during the relevant period for export services + export services whose provision has been completed for which payment had been received in advance in any period prior to the relevant period advances received for export services for which the provision of service has not been completed during the relevant period; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
