2015 (3) TMI 1104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er : Ms. Sudershana Banu, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) ORDER Per : B.S.V. MURTHY The appellant filed refund claim for CENVAT credit taken on input services under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) read with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules on the ground that the accumulated credit could not be utilised by them. The period involved is October 2008 to Feb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Para 9 of the decision was cited and is reproduced below:- 9. In this case, M/s. GAP, U.S.A., do not have any branch or project or business establishment in India. The service in relation to procurement of goods being provided by the appellant are entirely meant for M/s. GAP, U.S.A. and the service in question, - business auxiliary service, covered by Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of Services Rules and has taken note of the fact that apex court has observed that service tax is a destination based tax. In that case also, the service provided was classified as business auxiliary service. In my opinion, in the appellants case also, a similar stand can be taken. Accordingly this ground for rejection of refund claim cannot be sustained. Further I also have to observe that whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port of service. 4. The second ground taken for rejection is that appellant could have utilised the accumulated CENVAT credit. The learned counsel submitted that no doubt appellant had paid service tax in cash as observed by lower authorities but she submits that the relevant ST-3 returns would show that the entire amount of service tax was paid by them as a recipient of service which in accord....