Pioneer Hi Bred Private Limited Versus CCT, CE & ST, Medchal GST
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 923 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 11-5-2018
Appeal No. ST/30143/2018 – Final Order No. A/30562/2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial )
Shri Puneet Bansal, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent
ORDER
[ Order Per : M. V. Ravindran ]
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS- 001-AP2-0226-17-18-ST, dated 09.11.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding rejection of refund claim of Rs. 14,94,636/- on the grounds that the operations were carried out at different locations and which were not registered in the Centralised registration; denial of refund of Rs. 6,35,422/- on the ground that invoices issued by the Service Provider were not in the name of appellant.
4. Appellant herein
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ar.)] is not applicable and as regards refund of Rs. 6,35,422/- in addition to the finding that the premises were not registered, he has recorded that the invoices contain the name of another person i.e. Pioneer Overseas Corporation. As regards refund amount of Rs. 14,94,636/-, there is no dispute as to the fact that the locations from where the services were exported by the appellant were to the account of this appellant only and the premises from where the services were exported are in existence and the input services were received at such premises, is a question of fact that it is undisputed in both the issues.
6. If that be so, Ld. First appellate authority was in error in not following the law settled by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Private Limited (supra). Their Lordships in para Nos. 6 to 8 held as under:
(6). The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. The export of software at the relevant point of time was not a taxable s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ot made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside.
(8). That does not mean that the assessee is entitled to refund as claimed by him consequent to setting aside these orders. As is clear from the order of the original authority in the show cause notice, they have categorically called upon the assessee to furnish the particulars of the taxes paid on input services. They called upon the assessee to produce the invoices, bills, receipts to substantiate their claim for their verification. The assessee would be entitled to the refund of the Cenvat credit only on his proof that he has paid input Service tax.
7. Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CST Chennai [2017(3) GSTL 45 (Mad
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =