2018 (6) TMI 383 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund of service tax credit paid on various input services – the services were used for rendering export of output service – Whether computation of refund is correct in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) read with Rule 5 of the CCR 2004? – Held that:- This issue needs reconsideration by the first appellate authority as appellant had produced re-conciliation statement indicating the correct amount of refund which needs to be calculated but the first appellate authority in the impugned order has not passed any observations or given any reasoning either to accept or to reject it – matter on remand.
–
Refund claim – input services – Whether refund of input services viz. Air Travel agent services, accommodation services and cargo handling services has been denied correctly? – Held that:- The appellant has been taking a consistent stand that air travel, accommodation services were utilised for use of the employees at var
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tled the law which is that a refund application for service tax credit availed on the input services can be filed within one year from the end of the quarter from which services are exported – in the present case, the date of filing of the refund claim is within one year of the end of the specific quarters – refund claim is not barred by time.
–
Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. – ST/88086 & 88098/2017 – A/86123-86124/2018 – Dated:- 22-3-2018 – 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 incor
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he learned Counsel that as regards point No. (ii), (iii) and (iv) the issue is now settled by the various decision of the Tribunal more specifically Reliance Industries 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 calculate
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d, as regards cargo handling service it is his submission that these services were used for transporting of personnel belonging to the new 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =