M\/s. Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 764 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 4-10-2018
ST\/41144\/2018 – 42522\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri G. Shivakumar, Consultant
\nFor the Respondent : Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants provided facility management services (cleaning services) to Canara bank who are their customers. They discharged service tax for such services to the Government after collecting the same from Canara Bank. However, by some mistake Canara Bank under the impression that the appellants have provided manpower supply service<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Commissioner (Appeals). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n have not considered the same. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai OuterService Tax2018 (10) TMI 764 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 4-10-2018ST\/41144\/2018 – 42522\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri G. Shivakumar, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) ORDER Brief facts … Continue reading “M\/s. Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer”<\/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-14489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14489","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=14489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14489\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nHence this appeal.
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri G. Shivakumar, Consultant appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the only ground raised in the show cause notice is that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit of service tax which was paid by them to Canara Bank. In fact, Canara Bank had collected the service tax by mistake and therefore the appellant being a service provider cannot take CENVAT credit of the said amount. They have not taken any CENVAT credit on the said service tax amount which was collectedly wrongly by Canara Bank. He submitted that they had furnished necessary proof before the adjudicating authority to establish that the appellant has not passed the burden of tax to any other <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar submitted that the appellants have not produced necessary documents to show that the Canara Bank has collected service tax from the appellant and also necessary documents to establish that the appellant has borne the incidence of service tax relating to the refund claim.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The department has issued a letter dated 17.2.2017 informing the appellant that the refund claim has to be rejected for the reason that they have taken CENVAT credit of the amount which has been collected by Canara Bank. The said letter is stated to be a show cause notice and the appellants have replied to the same along with necessary documents to support that they have not taken any <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n