2018 (9) TMI 1212 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund claim – Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 – input services – insurance services – hotel accommodation invoices – denial of refund claims on the ground of nexus – Held that:- It is found that for the period pertaining to 15.12.2013 to 14.02.2014, two insurance coverage were obtained by the appellant and the conditions available on the overleaf of the insurance bond reflected that one is taken for property damage and other one is taken against legal protection that may arise due to dishonesty of employees, loss of documents, cover for defamation as well as intellectual property infringement made – Further, concerning hotel accommodation, the bills produced by the appellant indicate that one Prashant Reddy was accommodated in a Bangalore based hotel for four days, and the ld. Counsel submits that it was in connection with the business of the company which could have established in having given the chance to the appellant to substan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t service, credit against which were considered not admissible by the respondent department. 3. Ld. AR justified and reiterated the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allegedly passed on merit. 4. Gone through the case record and order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the orders-in-original. It is found that against 12 order-in-originals common order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The contentions of the parties are recorded and the grounds of rejection of adjudicating authority concerning admissibility and non-admissibility of cenvat credit have been dealt with. Inadmissibility of cenvat credit totalling to 42,62,073/- on the ground specified in the order-in-original are also reflected in his order, against which denial of refund was made. The grounds are as under:- i) That, the services are not covered under the definition of input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and have not gone into consumption for provision of output services
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
refund claim besides the fact that it claimed violation of principles of natural justice in refund without giving them an opportunity of being heard and adjudicated upon it without show-cause notice and he cited case laws reported in 1983 (13) ELT 1342 (SC), 1985 (21) ELT 281, 2012 (27) STR 387 (Tri-Del), 2009 TIOL 84 CESTAT DEL, 2008 (11) STR 212 (Tri-Del) to support his submissions. On perusal of 2 items namely insurance services and hotel accommodation invoices, it is found that for the period pertaining to 15.12.2013 to 14.02.2014, two insurance coverage were obtained by the appellant and the conditions available on the overleaf of the insurance bond reflected that one is taken for property damage and other one is taken against legal protection that may arise due to dishonesty of employees, loss of documents, cover for defamation as well as intellectual property infringement made. Further, concerning hotel accommodation, the bills produced by the appellant indicate that one Prashan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =