Everyday Health (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE Mumbai East
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 1077 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2019 (370) E.L.T. 846 (Tri. – Mumbai)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 25-9-2018
Appeal No. ST\/86921 & 86923\/2018 – A\/87458-87459\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Haren Pandya, C.A. for appellant
\nShri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nThese appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Thane East.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (ECU) and exports the entire output service to its clien<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ad not followed the procedures prescribed under statute, more specifically, as provided under Notification No. 27\/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n tput service to the over-seas entities. Thus, the accumulated CENVAT Credit balance available in the books should be available to the appellant as refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the refund claim applications filed by the appellant were denied by the original authority on the ground that the ST-3 returns filed for the relevant period were not reflected the available credit balance therein. Since the appellant claimed that revised returns were filed manually and the same were available with the department for necessary verification, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of ST-3 returns manually filed by the appellant and the input service invoices, based <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Everyday Health (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE Mumbai EastService Tax2018 (10) TMI 1077 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2019 (370) E.L.T. 846 (Tri. – Mumbai)CESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 25-9-2018Appeal No. ST\/86921 & 86923\/2018 – A\/87458-87459\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Haren Pandya, C.A. for appellant Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) … Continue reading “Everyday Health (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE Mumbai East”<\/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-14571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14571","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=14571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had exported the entire output service and since it was not able to utilize the input credit, the refund applications were filed claiming refund of service tax paid on the input services. He further submits that due to over sight, the ST-3 returns filed electronically were not reflected the particulars of available CENVAT Credit and on pointing out such mistake by the department, manual returns were filed, incorporating the credit particulars therein. He further submits that based on the records maintained by the appellan<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n