Commissioner of Central GST Mumbai Central Versus Barclays Wealth Trustees India Pvt Ltd (Vice-Versa)
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 383 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 22-3-2018
ST/88086 & 88098/2017 – A/86123-86124/2018
Service Tax
Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri Dilip Shinde, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for Revenue
Shri Prasad Paranjape with Shri Mihir Mehta, Advocates for assessee
ORDER
These appeals are filed by the appellant-assessee as well as Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No: PK/87/MC/2017 dated 31/08/2017 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
3. Appellant-assessee is in appeal against the order on the ground that the first appellate authority has incorrectly rejected the refund claim filed by them in respect of the service tax credit paid on various input services, and the said services were used for rendering export of output service. W
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dustries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai 2016 (45) STR 383 (Tri. Mumbai), Accenture Service Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai -II 2015 (40) STR 719 (Tri. Mumbai); and for the refund claim rejected on the time bar is covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bengaluru – I v. Span Infotech Pvt Ltd 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB. It is his submission that the Larger Bench has held that the refund claims filed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 can be filed within one year from the end of the particular quarter and submits that in all these case the refund claims were filed within one year from the end of the particular quarter. Revenue's appeal is on the same ground that the first appellate authority has calculated the period of one year which should be on the date of invoice.
5. As regards the point No.(i) of the issue, as reproduced herein above, I find that t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
units who were employed by the appellant and hence all these expenses having incorvectly allowed as these being of personal use.
7. I find that from the records that the appellant has been taking a consistent stand that air travel, accommodation services were utilised for use of the employees at various locations to render output services which were exported. I find that these services are squarely covered as eligible by the judgement in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd and Accenture Service Pvt Ltd (supra)
8. As regards the submissions on Cargo Handling Services, I find that this issue is also settled by the judgment of the Tribunal in the sae of Reliance Industries Ltd (supra). Accordingly, in respect of point, on merits that the appellant is eligible for the refund of the amount claimed by them subject to the calculation as mentioned at point No. (i).
9. As regards input services which has been denied on the ground that the invoices contained addresses
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =