2017 (3) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the issue involved in both the appeals is identical and against the common impugned order, I proceed to dispose of both the appeals by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is registered as the output service provider for Business Auxiliary Service and Business Support Services and most of his services are exported. Appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification 5/2006 NT dated 14.04.2006 for Rs. 19,50,473/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Three only) for the period November and December 2007 relating to input services availed and used in providing the output services exported. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner issued ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as both the authorities have failed to consider the submissions made by the appellant and the evidences produced by them. He further submitted that the impugned order has wrongly denied the credit on the ground that the name of the appellant is different in the input service invoices. He also submitted that the appellant duly obtained centralized Registration from the Service Tax Department in Chennai w.e.f. 1st April 2008. As the Service Tax Returns are required to be filed once in six months, the appellant chose to amend the registration w.e.f. 1st April 2008. However, the appellant has duly informed the Department of the change in name of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty as a recipient of services under reverse charge mechanism and therefore the question of such service provided by the appellant being exported or not does not arise and the lower authorities have confirmed the demand on the basis of assumptions which is wrong. In support of this, he submitted that the Service Tax Return clearly disclosed that these services are only received and not provided by the appellant. Further he submitted that the refund has been wrongly denied on the basis that value of taxable turnover differ in ST-3 and Form A. He further submitted that the appellant has disclosed these accruals in ST-3 return only for the purpose of having consistency in the books of accounts with ST-3 Return, accordingly request the same is n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ography Services holding the same as not input services. In this regard, the learned counsel submitted that these two services are input services because they are relating to the business operations. He also submitted that Photography Services were used for the purpose of issue of ID cards for the employee which is mandate for an employee and that the car park facility is essential part of the premises from where the taxable services are rendered and they are to be treated as part of rent for the building which is in turn an eligible input service. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following authorities: a) CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 b) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (242) E....