Anderson Business Solutions P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Bhiwandi, Thane
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 329 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 19-3-2018
ST\/85527, 85528, 85530, 85543, 85544\/18 – FINAL ORDER NO. A\/86195-86199\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Rajiv Luthia, C.A. for appellant
\nShri Atul Sharma, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: M.V. Ravindran
\nThese five appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No. PK\/75-79\/Appeal Thane\/TH\/2017-18 dated 01.11.2017.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding rejection of refund of claim of CENVAT Credit availed where service tax paid on the follo<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ceived and utilized by the appellant during the course of rendering output services which are exported. In my view, export of insurance service and the amount involved therein as credit of service tax paid by the service provider of the services would fall under the category of “services” which are used for providing output services by the appellant and exported. To that extent, I rely upon the decision of Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cus. & ST – 2017 (12) TMI 836 – (Tri.). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Anderson Business Solutions P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Bhiwandi, ThaneService Tax2018 (6) TMI 329 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 19-3-2018ST\/85527, 85528, 85530, 85543, 85544\/18 – FINAL ORDER NO. A\/86195-86199\/2018Service TaxMr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajiv Luthia, C.A. for appellant Shri Atul Sharma, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: M.V. … Continue reading “Anderson Business Solutions P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Bhiwandi, Thane”<\/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-12067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12067","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=12067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. As regards the service tax credit on the insurance services, maintenance and repair services, I find that the said services in respect of individuals are not allowed accordingly to that extent, impugned orders <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n