3DPLM Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Central Excise & ST, Raigarh
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1461 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 28-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/86473\/2018 – A\/87226\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for appellant
\nShri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nIn this case, the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), registered under STPI Scheme. The entire output services are exported by the appellant to its clients located abroad. The taxable service namely, Information Technology Service provided by the appellant is categorized as a taxable service, as per the definition provided under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant avails CENVAT Credit in respect of various input services used \/ utilized for providing such output service. Since the appellant exports its entire output service, there was no scope <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n aintained adequate records to demonstrate that the credit particulars were relatable to the export of service during the period April to June 2011. Thus, he contended that for mere procedure lapses of non-reflecting the credit particulars for the period from April to June 2011, substantive right for the refund claim cannot be whittled down. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n od April to June 2011. Thus, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the accounting records maintained by the appellant, to satisfy himself that the credit was availed during the relevant period and services were utilized for providing the exported output service during such period. The original authority while adjudicating the matter afresh, should not insist the appellant for establishing the nexus between the input services and the output service, provided by it inasmuch as, the appellant is a 100% EOU and no services were provided to the domestic clients. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant had not used the input service for export of the output service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 3DPLM Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Central Excise & ST, RaigarhService Tax2018 (11) TMI 1461 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 28-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/86473\/2018 – A\/87226\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for appellant Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. … Continue reading “3DPLM Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Central Excise & ST, Raigarh”<\/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-15235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15235","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=15235"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15235\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that since the appellant had not produced any documents to demonstrate that input services, in dispute, were utilized for the services exported during the period April to June 2011, rejection of refund benefit by the authorities below is proper and justified.
\n4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n5. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order on the ground that the input credit has not been reflected in the relevant ST-3 Returns filed for t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, I remand the matter to the original authority for passing of fresh adjudication order in line with the above observations. Needless to say, that opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the appellant b<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n