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>Appeal partially allowed due to improper refund claim modification.</h1> <h3>M/s. Siemens Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Mumbai Central, Mumbai</h3> M/s. Siemens Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.2. Requirement of service tax registration for refund claims.3. Eligibility of input services for Cenvat credit.4. Denial of refund without issuing a notice under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.5. Refund claim adjustments and cash refund entitlement under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Refund Claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules:The appellant filed a refund claim under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012, citing export of output services without payment of service tax from January 2016 to March 2016. The Assistant Commissioner allowed a partial refund but rejected Rs. 32,72,814/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection, leading to the current appeal.2. Requirement of Service Tax Registration for Refund Claims:The refund claim was partly denied because the appellant obtained Service Tax registration on 01.04.2016, after the period for which the refund was claimed. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that proper registration is necessary for claiming refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, referencing the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Sutham Nylocots.3. Eligibility of Input Services for Cenvat Credit:The Commissioner (Appeals) examined various input services:- Office Address Not in ST-2 (Rs. 937,532/-): Denied due to lack of correlation between the address on invoices and the registered address.- Mediclaim Policy for Parents and Group Accident Policy (Rs. 20,22,005/-): Denied as the policies were for personal use of employees, referencing Rule 2(1)(C) of CCR, 2004.- Club Services (Rs. 3,931/-): Not contested by the appellant as it pertained to personal consumption of employees.4. Denial of Refund Without Issuing a Notice under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules:The appellant argued that the refund claim was denied without issuing a notice under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal has consistently held that refund claims under Rule 5 cannot be modified without initiating show cause proceedings under Rule 14. The Tribunal referenced multiple decisions, including BNP Paribas India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that denial of Cenvat credit requires a notice under Rule 14.5. Refund Claim Adjustments and Cash Refund Entitlement under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act:The appellant acknowledged that Rs. 3,09,347/- was not admissible due to computational errors but argued that this amount should be credited back to the Cenvat account as per Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT). The Tribunal agreed that the amount should be credited back if possible. Regarding the cash refund claim under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, the Tribunal stated that it is for the appellant to seek a proper order from the concerned authorities under the CGST Act.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, stating that the modification of the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 29,53,467/- by the lower authorities cannot be upheld without issuing a notice under Rule 14. The Tribunal also directed that the amount of Rs. 3,09,347/- should be credited back to the Cenvat account if possible. The issue of cash refund under the CGST Act was left to be resolved by the concerned authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
