https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767679 CESTAT Mumbai dismissed appeals by holding company seeking refund of accumulated cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant paid service tax on reverse charge basis for services provided by overseas subsidiaries to their overseas clients, claiming these as input services. CESTAT held that services provided directly by subsidiaries to overseas clients do not qualify as input services for the holding company, as the appellant had no role in providing these services. The cenvat credit related to transactions occurring beyond India's territorial jurisdiction where service tax was not leviable under Section 64 of Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, service tax refund claims were rejected due to insufficient information and lack of proper bifurcation of refund amounts across individual appeals, making any favorable order unimplementable. en-us Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767679 CESTAT Mumbai dismissed appeals by holding company seeking refund of accumulated cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant paid service tax on reverse charge basis for services provided by overseas subsidiaries to their overseas clients, claiming these as input services. CESTAT held that services provided directly by subsidiaries to overseas clients do not qualify as input services for the holding company, as the appellant had no role in providing these services. The cenvat credit related to transactions occurring beyond India's territorial jurisdiction where service tax was not leviable under Section 64 of Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, service tax refund claims were rejected due to insufficient information and lack of proper bifurcation of refund amounts across individual appeals, making any favorable order unimplementable. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767679