2016 (7) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....utside India. The appellant is 100% EOU registered under Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) Scheme at Hyderabad and Bangalore. It is registered with Service Tax Department under Centralised Registration. The appellant filed refund claim for the period October 2011 to December 2011 for an amount of Rs. 62,14,543/- with respect to the unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various input services used for providing output services, in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/03/2006. 3. The Assistant Commissioner after verification and processing sanctioned an amount of Rs. 54,50,771/- and rejected refund claim to the tune of Rs. 7,36,855/-. The appellant filed an appeal b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is premises was not registered with Service Tax Department. He referred to Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and argued that there is no statutory obligation that the premises of the service recipient has to be registered and that such registered address should be shown in the invoices. The said Rule states that the invoice should bear the service tax registration number of the service provider. It is sufficient that the name, address details of service recipient is disclosed in the invoice. 4.2 Business Support Services and Business Auxiliary Services were availed for the cost sharing expenses/cross charging of expenses towards Telecommunication, Internet port charges which are shared by group entities of GE. Such expenses are already ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in the returns. In CST v. Convergys India (P.) Ltd. [2009] 21 STT 67 (New Delhi-Cestat), it was observed that there cannot be two separate yardsticks for availing credit and refund of the same. This was clarified in the Board's Circular dated 19/01/2010. He pleaded that the appeal may be allowed. 5. Against this, the learned AR Shri Rajesh Jacob reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the disallowance of credit is correct and proper. 6. I have heard the rival submissions. Major portion of the refund is denied for the reason that the invoice is issued to the unregistered premises of the appellant. As per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, there is no requirement that the premises of the service recipient....