TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants appeal, sets aside refund denial. New credit availment period for invoices.</h1> <h3>M/s Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C.G. ST, Mumbai Central</h3> M/s Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C.G. ST, Mumbai Central - TMI Issues:Refund benefit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012 - denial by department due to lack of evidence establishing nexus between input and output services and issuance of invoices beyond prescribed period.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in exporting Information Technology Services, availed Cenvat credit for services procured from vendors both inside and outside India. The appellant claimed refund benefit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for services procured domestically. The department partly allowed refund applications but denied benefits for certain services like car parking, cafeteria, travel, medical, and hotel services, citing lack of evidence establishing nexus and invoices issued beyond six months. The appellant argued that direct nexus is not required as per statute and cited relevant judgments and a CBEC circular supporting their claim.The Tribunal noted that the department did not dispute the exportation of output services by the appellant and observed that Rule 5 does not mandate a one-to-one correlation between input and output services. The CBEC circular and precedent cases supported this view. Regarding the period for availing Cenvat credit, the Tribunal highlighted the amendment substituting 'six months' with 'one year' for credit availment, ensuring credit cannot be denied if taken within one year from invoice issuance. The Tribunal directed a re-examination at the original stage to ascertain if credit was availed within one year for disputed invoices.Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant for denying refund benefits based on nexus establishment. The appeal concerning invoices issued beyond the prescribed period was remanded to the original authority for a decision on merit following the new one-year credit availment period. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
