Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (10) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es for de novo proceedings by giving certain directions. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and Business Support Services (BSS) and have filed a refund claim of unutilized Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services amounting to Rs. 1,44,34,695/- under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.05/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order sanctioned an amount of Rs. 72,07,785/- on services of telephone, internet telephone services, leased circuit services, courier and maintenance of computer network services, i.e. rent a cab service, manpower recruitment, management, maintenance or repair services, security,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....des and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order remanding the matter for de novo proceedings is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 72,26,910/- on the ground that travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice. He further submitted that it is well settled law that by traveling beyond the show-cause notice, no demand of duty or recovery or erroneous refund or rejection of refund claim can be confirmed. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2007(215) E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ements with the customers. Any deviation from the agreed service levels reduces revenue and the attendance of employees at proper times is critical to continue the business of providing services to the customers. Also, the safety of the employees who are arriving and departing at night is ensured only through the company provided transport. (i) Comr. Of C Ex Bangalore III v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) 2. Manpower recruitment and supply These services are required to hire employees for providing services to customers (i) Utopia India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2011 (23) S.T.R. 25 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. Cleaning Services These services are used for maintaining compute....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i. Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-I 2016 (42) S.T.R. 886 (Tri. - Mumbai) 8. Scientific or technical consultancy services These are various technical services used for training employees on required skills to provide services to the customers i. Mercedes Benz Research & Dev. India P. Ltd. v. C.S.T., Bangalore 2017 (49) S.T.R. 227 (Tri. - Bang.) 9. Security agency services These services are used for maintaining security for office premises and for other verifications. As the services offered to customers involve sensitive date and costly equipments, the security of the premises is of paramount importance. Utopia India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2011 (23) STR 25 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tries Ltd., reported at 2010 (259) E.L.T. 356 (Guj.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2011 (274) E.L.T. A110 (S.C.); c. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. Union of India, reported at 2012 (27) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.) d. Union of India v. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, reported at 2016 (333) E.L.T.193 (S.C.); and e. C.C., Airport & ACC, Bangalore v. Pfizer Products India P. Ltd., reported at 2015 (324) E.L.T. 259 (Kar.) f. Final Order No. 20443/2017 dated 27.03.2017/31.03.2017 passed by Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore in the matter of Videocon Industries Ltd g. Final Order No. 20464/2017 dated 5.04.2017 passed by Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore in the matter of Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd 5. On the other hand, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usiness such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal 7. Further we find that all the input services have been held to be input services by various case laws cited supra. Further we find that the period involved in the present appeal is prior to 01/04/2011 where the definition of input service was very wide and exhaustive as held in various decisions cited supra. Therefore by following the ratios of the above said decisions, we are of the opinion that the impugned order rejecting the refund....