Commissioner CGST, Mumbai Central Excise Versus Morgan Stanley Investment Management
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 400 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1158 (Tri. – Mumbai), [2019] 71 G S.T.R. 217 (CESTAT – Mum)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 20-2-2018
ST\/87882\/2017 – A\/85850\/2018
Service Tax
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Atul Sharma, Asstt.Commr. (A.R.) for Appellant
\nShri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for respondent
\nThe Revenue has filed the present appeal raising the following three questions of law:
\n (a)Whether the 'relevant date' for the purpose of deciding whether refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is barred by limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of foreign exchange as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) or it should be considered from the date of export of service or raising of invoices, as being contended by the Revenue in this appeal;
\n (b)Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is right in holding that the eligible<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s allowed the refund of the respondent. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n sed to consider only that amount of cenvat credit availed during the relevant period after deduction of the amount used for payment of service tax on domestic service tax liability which is contrary to the clear provision under Rule 5 read with notification issued thereunder. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held in favour of the respondent which deserves to be sustained. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Tribunal in their own case passed the following order: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ove Rule 6A, it can be seen that as per sub-rule (1) clause (e), the payment for such service should be received by the provider of service in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, unless and until the payment consideration in convertible foreign exchange against the export of service is received, the export of service is not complete. Accordingly, the relevant date of one year for filing of refund claim should be reckoned from the date of receipt of convertible foreign exchange. Since the department in appeal has raised only the issue of time limit for filing the refund claim, we are not going into any other issue. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e amount lying in balance at the end of the quarter or at the time of filing of the refund whichever is less. As per the fact narrated by the Ld. Counsel the refund claim amount is lesser, both the amount and cenvat credit balance at the end of the quarter as well as cenvat credit balance at the time of filing the refund and therefore the condition envisaged under clause (g) of para 2 of the notification is scrupulously complied with. It is also observed that in formula given under Rule 5 is relevant which is reproduced below: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n export services whose provision has been completed for which payment had been received in advance in any period prior to the relevant period – advances received for export services for which the provision of service has not been completed during the relevant period; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n re the refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of admissibility of the input service at the stage of processing of refund claim. This was held by the Tribunal in the following cases : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner CGST, Mumbai Central Excise Versus Morgan Stanley Investment ManagementService Tax2018 (5) TMI 400 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1158 (Tri. – Mumbai), [2019] 71 G S.T.R. 217 (CESTAT – Mum)CESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 20-2-2018ST\/87882\/2017 – A\/85850\/2018Service TaxShri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Atul Sharma, Asstt.Commr. (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate … Continue reading “Commissioner CGST, Mumbai Central Excise Versus Morgan Stanley Investment Management”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Shri Atul Sharma, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal.
\n4. Shri Prasad Paranjape the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as regard limitation in the case of respondent's own group-entities in Appeal No. ST\/87435\/2017 this Tribunal vide order No. A\/85150-85151\/2018 held that the computation of limitation in respect of filing the refund claim should be reckoned from the date of receipt of foreign exchange and not from the date of invoices or from the date of export of service, therefore this issue is already settled.
\n5. As regard the computation of eligible refund. He submits that the refund is to be computed as per the formula provided in Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004. The notification issued under the said Rule namely Notification No. 27\/2012-CE(NT) provided at para 2 (g) stipulates that the refund amount shall not be more than the cenvat credit<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. As regard the eligibility of certain input services he submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly examined the eligibility of all the services before him based on the submission made before him in the grounds of appeal and hence allowed the claim of the respondent. He further submits that Revenue has never objected the availment of cenvat credit as no show cause notice was issued for denial of the credit. The issue of inadmissibility of the input service was raised at the stage of sanctioning of the refund claim. Therefore in view of the settled position in law without specific adjudicatio<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that in both the cases, the period involved is after 1.7.2012. Prior to 1.7.2012, the definition of export of service under Rule 5 was as under: –
\n “export service” means the service which is provided as per provision of Export of Service Rules, 2005 whether the payment is received or not.
\nHowever, from 1.7.2012, the aforesaid definition of “export service” under Rule 5 was amended. The amended definition reads as under: –
\n “export service” means the service which is provided as per Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
\nSince all the relevant claims are pertaining to the period after 1.7.2012 only the amended definition of export service is applicable. Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 are read as under: –
\n RULE [6A. Export of services. – (1) The provision of any service provided or agreed to be provided shall be treat<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and Revenue's appeals are dismissed.”
\n8. In view of the above judgements of this Tribunal in the appellant's own group entities case, I hold that refund cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. As regard the issue that whether the proposal of the Revenue to reduce the cenvat credit utilize for payment of service tax on <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“5. Refund of CENVAT Credit. – (1)A manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediate product for export without payment of duty under bond or letter of undertaking, or a service provider who provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, shall be allowed refund of CENVAT credit as determined by the following formula subject to procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified by the Board by notificati<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(E) “Total turnover” means sum total of the value of –
\n(a) all excisable goods cleared during the relevant period including exempted goods, dutiable goods and excisable goods exported;
\n(b) export turnover of services determined in terms of clause (D) of sub-rule (1) above and the value of all other services, during the relevant period; and
\n(c) all inputs removed as such under sub-rule (5) of rule 3 against an invoice, during the period for which the claim is filed.”
\nFrom the above formula, and definition of net cenvat credit, it is clear that only cenvat credit availed on the inputs and inputs services by the manufacturer or the output service provider should be taken as 'net Cenvat credit'. The only amount which <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (i) Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd. – 2009 (16) S.T.R. 198 (Tri.-Del.)
\n (ii) Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Ltd. Versus Commr. Of S.T., Mumbai-II 2015 (37) S.T.R. 639 (Tri. – Mumbai)
\nThus, the adjudicating authority was supposed to first decide the issue of admissibility of the input service by way of issue of show cause notice and carry out adjudication thereof then only the refund could have been rejected on this point. But in the facts of the present case without carrying out any adjudication process straight away refund was rejected which is incorrect and illegal. Therefore on this count itself, the Revenue's appeal on the issue of admissibility of the input service does not sustain. As per my above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainabl<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n