Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE Mumbai
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 19 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 29-5-2018
Appeal No. ST\/85733\/2018 – A\/86926\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Harish Bindu Madhavan, Advocate, Shri Aakash Sarda, C.A for appellant
\nShri V.R. Reddy, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nBrief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing the taxable services under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' 'Information Technology Service' and 'Maintenance and Repair Service', defined under the Finance Act, 1994. During the period April to June '2013, the appellant had filed refund appli<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s allowed the refund benefit for Rs. 3,89,143\/- and rejected the balance amount of Rs. 3,40,065\/- on the ground that no nexus have been established between the input and the output services. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n al of the statutory provisions read with the clarifications furnished by the TRU, it transpires that under the substituted Rule 5 of the rules, there is no requirement of showing the nexus between the input service and the output service provided by the assessee. Since the refund under the said amended rule is governed on the basis of receipt of export turnover to the total turnover, the establishing the nexus between the input and output service cannot be insisted upon for consideration of the refund application. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE MumbaiService Tax2018 (8) TMI 19 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 29-5-2018Appeal No. ST\/85733\/2018 – A\/86926\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Harish Bindu Madhavan, Advocate, Shri Aakash Sarda, C.A for appellant Shri V.R. Reddy, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. … Continue reading “Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE Mumbai”<\/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-12943","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12943","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=12943"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12943\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12943"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12943"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12943"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was substituted vide Notification No. 18\/2012-CE (NT) dated 17.03.2012, with effect from 01.04.2012. The said substituted rule has prescribed the formula for claiming refund of service tax by the service provider. Under such amended rule in vogue, there is no requirement of satisfying the nexus between the input services and the output service provided by the servic<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order in denying the refund benefit to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
\n(Order dictated in C<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n