M/s Lexmark International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 865 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 10-9-2018
S.T. Appeal No.75672/2018 – FO/76608/2018
Service Tax
SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Shri Pinki Shaw, C.A. for the Appellant (s)
Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt.(A.R.) for the Revenue
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.372/S.Tax I/Kol/2017 dated 12.12.2017 passed by Commr. of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals I), Kolkata.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in exporting taxable output service namely, 'Information Technology Software Service'. For providing the service, exported outside the country, the appellant availed various input services, defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereafter referred to as the 'Cenvat Rules', in sho
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Ltd, Vs. Commr. Of CGST.
2.
Burman Bohra & Associates
Practising Chartered Accountant Service
4,450.00
Does not have relation or nexus to export of service
Refer 2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri.-del.)- KPMG Vs. CCE, New Delhi, 2018- TIOL- 2451- CESTAT-MUM Accelya Kale Sol Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of CGST, 2018-TIOL- 2443-CESTATMUM- Visteon Technical and Services Center Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Commr. Of CGST
3.
Cloud That Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Commercial Training & Coaching
42,642.00
Unknown nature of training including reimbursement of travel, fooding etc.
The training is included in the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Rules.
4.
AT & T Global Network Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Internet telecommunication Service
2,84,664
Service receiver's address in input invoice does not match
The invoices are in the name of appellant themselves and the receipt of services has not been challenged so the same credit may be allowed Refer Case law of DHL Logistics Vs. Commr. Of Central Excis
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hile granting the refund of the same credit. It is wrong to refuse refund of credit lawfully taken on the ground of inadmissibility. In support of his contention, she has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax, Thane reported in 2018-TIOL-2451- CESTAT-MUM.
5. The ld.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
7. I find that the transaction undertaken by the appellants qualified to be “export of service”, as defined under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Since they were not in a position to utilize the accumulated Cenvat Credit, refund claim has been filed in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the provisions of Notification No.27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The present dispute is on disallowance of such refund claim under various heads on the ground of lack of nex
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =