TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing air and gas compressors, rock drilling tools, construction and demolition tools, drill rigs and equipment, industrial power tools and assemblies (collectively equipment) and providing various services. Appellant has various manufacturing locations across India. Appellant has a service tax registration in respect of its premises at Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bangalore and are engaged in rendering 'Consulting Engineering Service for customers / group companies located outside India. Appellant has obtained centralized service tax registration issued under Rule 4(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune for the registered office s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CCR read with Notification No.27/2012-CE dt. 18/06/2012. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice dt. 29/01/2016 observing that certain documents have not been filed and in the absence of those documents, the refund is liable to be rejected. Thereafter the appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice and attached all the documents which were necessary in support of his claim for refund. Thereafter by following the due process, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund on the following grounds:- i. The appellant has failed to submit the BRCs even after additional time granted, as the export of services is not proved as per Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules. ii. The statement / annexure submitted in rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order denying the refund of CENVAT credit for export of services is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) is grossly wrong in appreciating the facts that the appellant i.e. Bangalore unit does have a separate service tax registration with Bangalore Service Tax w.e.f. 11.05.2009 but it is also registered as a unit under the centralized service tax registration obtained at Pune w.e.f. 11/05/2008 and he has submitted the copy of registration certificates both for Bangalore unit and centralized service tax registration along with this appeal.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at various branches or offsite locations are brought to the Pune office for verification and accounting and the same are also paid from Pune as no separate bank account is kept or operated at Bangalore. Due to centralized billing, all invoices are raised from Pune and therefore the export proceeds are received in Pune bank account from where the funds required by the appellant are provided. He further submitted that all the input services on which CENVAT credit was availed were received at the Bangalore premises only and mere payment by the Pune office to the service providers cannot create prohibition for availing the CENVAT credit. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- a. Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the material on record, I find that the services of consulting engineering have been rendered from Bangalore unit where the appellant has been registered as service provider. It is also a fact that the registered office of the company situated at Pune and they have a centralized registration for Pune office and has also obtained ISD registration at Pune w.e.f. 11/05/2008 and copy of these registrations have been placed on record. Further I find that the Head Office of the appellant is at Pune which is referred in the centralized service tax registration and certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies. Further I also find that all the accounting, finance and administration functions are housed in Pune and as a matter of internal co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the invoices are found to be in the name of the assessee-company, issued to the branch offices. The payments are accounted at the head office which is registered as an ISD. The availment of credit and the distribution by the head office are legal and proper. ... ... 7.2. Further in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Emerson Innovation Center [2015-TIOL-887-CESTAT-MUM], it was held that 'so long as the credit admissible and has been taken and lying accumulated and the exporter is unable to unitlise the credit, he is eligible for refund of the accumulated credit. This is the whole purpose and aim of Rule 5 of the CCR Rule, 2004." Further I find that the payments made to the input service provider from the Pune bank account are made in respect of ....