TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1011
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., thus there was no compliance of Notification No. 27/12-CE(N.T.) dated 18-6-2012. 4. Refund in respect of Cenvat Credit availed against invoices pertains to out of pocket expenses was rejected. 5. Invoice bearing different address which is not registered with Service Tax department. 6. Refund rejected twice in respect of some invoices. 7. There is error in OIA whereby refund of an amount of Rs. 2,98,987/- was erroneously rejected twice in the OIO. 8. Incorrect formula was applied for computation of an amount. 9. Supporting documents not submitted. 10. In respect of an amount of Rs. 2,27,436/- for the period Oct to Dec, 2012 no reason was given for the difference in between amount of refund in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and amount sanctioned but rejected in OIA. Being aggrieved by the orders-in-Appeal appellant filed present appeals. 2. Shri. Abhishek Rastogi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the department has denied the refund claim in respect of Cenvat credit availed on various inputs service under the category of accommodation, courier, renting of immovable property, works contract, goods transport agency services, general insurance service, clu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted citing non compliance of Notification No. 27/12-CE(N.T.) he submits that the debit entry was shown in the ST-3 returns filed and revised Cenvat account was submitted pursuant to the show cause notice hearing with the adjudicating authority. As regard the issue whether the Cenvat credit in respect of invoice pertains to out of pocket expenses, he submits that Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 requires the value of OPEs to be included in the taxable value for the purpose of levy of service tax. Hence, invoices for OPEs can be considered to have the same nature as that of the main service rendered. In the HCL Technologies case cited by the department, the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has rejected the refund on out-of-pocket expenses because the relevant underlying service could not be identified. In the present instance, the Appellant submits that the out-of-pocket expenses have been paid to JLL on account of various types of support services such as manpower, repairs and maintenance availed from them. A copy of the contract entered into with JLL is enclosed is clearly identifiable in this at page 224 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on invoices issued by M/s. Leadedge Training and Consulting. However, the amount of rejection exceeds the amount of credit availed by INR 43,219/- as pointed out by the Appellant. The adjudicating authority has inadvertently rejected the excess amount of INR 43,219/-. During the period Oct '10 to Mar '11 (OM no. ST-11/Div.V/MU/R-122/13-14/2940, OIA No. 843, appeal no. ST/85693/2015-Mum), the adjudicating authority has made an arithmetic error in computing the rejection amount as pointed out by the Appellant. This has lead to an excess rejection of INR 1,593/-. 7. There is error in OIA inasmuch as an amount of Rs. 2,98,987/- was wrongly rejected twice in OIO. In this regard the Appellant had pointed out this error in the appeal before commissioner (Appeals-II). The Commissioner (Appeals-II) had accepted the contentions made by the Appellant in this regard in para 9 of the OIA. However, the Commissioner(Appeals-II) has not included this amount in the amount sanctioned (INR 61,42,834/-) in para 11 of the OIO. During the period July to September 2013 (010 no. AC/R-210/Div-V/MU/14-15, OIA no. PK/215/ME/2017, appeal no. ST/85487/2018-(D13)), the Appellant had challenged the rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether the appellant is entitled for the refund claim under Rule 5 despite various discrepancies pointed out by the lower authorities. 14. As regard the issue related to nexus of input service with the output service, we find that services involved are following services with its use as detailed below: 1. Event management services & Photography services -Business events organised for holding business discussions and interactions(Specifically covered under "advertisement or sales promotion") 2. Convention services - For holding conferences, meetings and outdoor training of employees (Specifically covered under "coaching and training services") 3. Sponsorship services - For mandatory CSR activities (Specifically covered under "advertisement or sales promotion") 4. Works Contract services - Commissioning and installation electrical equipment / electronic devices (Services are not used for construction or execution of works contract for building or civil structure or any part thereof or for laying foundation or support structure of capital goods; Specifically covered under "renovation and repair" services) 5. Business Auxiliary Services - Consultant fees for actuarial valuation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded in the present case. Accordingly, both the lower authorites have erred in interpreting definition of input service. 17. As regard the issue that the refund for the period April to September, 2012 filed for six months it was observed that appellant though filed refund claim after six month but they have filed though one claim but it is for April to Jun 2012 and July to September, 2012, merely for the reason that no separate claim for two quarters were filed refund cannot be rejected. The restriction under notification provided to avoid multiple claims in particular quarters therefore the claim should be filed quarterly basis but if the claim is filed after six months for two quarters there is no violation of any condition. Only condition which bar the refund is refund should be filed within the overall period of one year from the relevant date. If that be so refund is well within the time limit and same should be allowed. 18. Refund claim was rejected on the ground that appellant for the period April to September, 2012 have not shown debit of refund amount in Cenvat account at the time of filing the refund claim. However appellant have subsequently, debited the said amount ....