M/s. Cross Tab Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST Mumbai East
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1212 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 19-9-2018
ST/86323 to 86331 & 86335 to 86337/2018 – A/87347-87358/2018
Service Tax
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri Parth Shah, CA
For the Respondent : Shri M.P. Damle, AC (AR)
ORDER
Denial of refund claims of the appellant in 12 numbers of adjudication orders being confirmed in one order of the Commissioner (Appeals), is challenged before this Tribunal.
2. The contention of the appellant is that it is a company providing market research agency service to foreign customers only and for the period post July 2012, after introduction of negative list and Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 (PPSR), the appellant sought for refunds which were partially allowed and partially rejected without appellant being called upon to explain the nexus between the input and output service, cred
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
That the input services have no nexus or any relation with the output services, in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
iii) That the payments to vendors are not made within the period of three months from the date of invoices as per Rule 4 (Sub-Rule 7) in Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
iv) That the address of the service receiver not mentioned on the invoices.
5. What is found from the record and from the order passed from the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the submissions of the appellant before him that entire services have been exported for which nexus between input and output service are not required to be established, was not accepted by him despite the fact that this appellate Tribunal in 2016 (41) STR 984 in the case of Ness Technologies has given a similar finding.
6. During the course of hearing of the case, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted a bunch of invoices copies to establish the nexus between input and output services and its applicability to its
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nt 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 substantiate the same before the adjudicating authority.
The Appellate Tribunal can give direction for fresh adjudication or decision by the authority who passed such decision/ order after taking additional evidence [Section 35C(1)] and Rule 23 enables this Appellate Tribunal to direct parties to produce documents before it for purpose of assessment or grant permission to parties to adduce evidence before it. However, considering the fact that impugned order categorically held to be inadmissible and the same admissibility requires thorough scrutinisation of documents whereby the appellant would get an opportunity to be heard and substantiate its claim on admissibility of refund of cenvat credit, I consider that it is a fit case that needs re-adjudication by
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =