TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued by Delhi Office as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), to Mumbai office has been held as bad because Delhi unit is not providing any taxable output services. Accordingly, held credit of Service Tax attributed to services used in Delhi office are not eligible for distribution to the Bombay office in terms of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules amounting to Rs. 10,67,348/- and further CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,81,290/- have been denied and consequently, the refund claim of the appellant assessee under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006 was rejected in part. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant assessee is registered with the Service Tax department and Delhi office is also registered as an ISD. The appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question April, 2009 to Sept. 2009. Further, the appellant availed CENVAT Credit of Service Tax to an extent of Rs. 1,07,76,636/- on input services used for output services. As the appellant is engaged in export of services, without payment of Service Tax during the period in question, they could not avail the CENVAT Credit and accordingly, filed refund application on 24.3.2010 and 29.6.2010 for refund of CENVAT Credit availed for the quarter April, 2009 to June, 2009 and July, 2009 to Sept. 2009 respectively. The jurisdictional Service Tax authorities issued show-cause notice dated 26.10.2010 calling upon the appellant to provide additional clarifications and certain further information and documents. The appellant submitted reply to show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Account maintained at Mumbai. The findings in the impugned order are perverse. Further, the said conclusion that the Delhi unit is not providing output service is without any basis. It is further stated that there is no finding that the appellant have not completed all the conditions as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It is further urged that in similar facts and circumstances, refund for subsequent period has been allowed. It is further stated that the appellant assessee had applied for Centralised registration in October, 2010 and the same have been allowed by grant of Centralised registration certificate dated 11.11.2010, a copy of which is filed in the paper book. (ii) As regards the second ground relating to n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and accordingly, the disallowance is bad. (v) As regards the Broadcasting services received from NDTV where the major amount of Rs. 1,75,100/- is concerned, the reason for disallowance is bad. The appellant have filed the relevant vouchers before this Tribunal and states that as per the agreement with foreign principal, it is the promotion of their technology and services, which appellant is doing in India and the input service fully received in the appellant's office. The purchase invoice for Broadcasting services from NDT shows the amount of Service charges valued at Rs. 17 lakhs and the Service Tax amount is Rs. 1,75,100/-. Further, it is evident that the purchase order has been issued by the Delhi office of the appellant. Further....