TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issing input invoices (c) Invoices for unregistered premises Oct' 2010 to Dec' 2010 ST/41537/2017 OIO No. 27/2016(R) dated 17.02.2016 OIA Nos. 184, 185, 186, 187 & 188/2017 (STA-I) dated 31.03.2017 (a) Ineligible input services (b) Missing input invoices (c) Invoices for unregistered premises (d) Input invoice not matching with CENVAT Register (e) Incorrect amount on invoice when compared with CENVAT Register Jan' 2011 to Mar' 2011 ST/41538/2017 OIO No. 28/2016(R) dated 18.02.2016 (a) Ineligible input services (b) Invoices for unregistered premises Apr' 2011 to June 2011 ST/41539/2017 OIO No. 81/2016(R) dated 24.03.2016 (a) Ineligible input services (b) Missing input invoices (c) Invoices for unregistered premises (d) Excess Input Credit claimed July 2011 to Sep' 2011 ST/41540/2017 OIO No. 120/2016(R) dated 11.04.2016 (a) Ineligible input services (b) Missing input invoices (c) Invoices for unregistered premises Oct' 2011 to Dec' 2011 ST/41541/2017 OIO No. 128/2016(R) dated 04.05.2016 (a) Ineligible input services (b) Missing input invoices (c) Incorrect invoice (d) Invoices for unregistered premises 3. When the matter w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee need not establish nexus : (i) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune-III [2009-TIOL-449-HC-MUM-ST]; (ii) C.C. & C.Ex., Hyderabad-IV v. Deloitte Tax Service India Pvt. Ltd. [2012-TIOL-954-HC-AP-ST]; (iii) C.C.E. & S.T., Bangalore v. ABB Ltd., Vadodara [2011-TIOL-395-HC-KAR-ST]; (iv) Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore [2012 (28) S.T.R. 87 (Kar.)]; (v) C.C.E., Hyderabad-IV v. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (11) S.T.R. 266 (Tri. - Bang.)]; (vi) ABB Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T., Bangalore [2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tri. - LB)]; (vii) Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore v. C.C.E., Bangalore [2009-TIOL-1957-CESTAT-BANG]; (viii) Scope International Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai [2018 (7) T.M.I. 1007 - CESTAT Chennai]' (ix) KLA Tencor Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. C.S.T., Chennai-III [2016 (6) T.M.I. 447 - CESTAT Chennai] 5.2.3 He further contended, without prejudice to his other contentions, that the Revenue has only denied the refund in respect of the above services without questioning the eligibility, but for want of nexus and in this regard, he relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v) Car Parking Charges (xvi) AMC Charges (xvii) External Consultant 9.2 We find that some of these services are covered by the decisions of various judicial fora, and are dealt with in the following manner : * Gardening Service : This issue was dealt with by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III [2013 (4) T.M.I. 384 - CESTAT Ahmedabad] wherein the Tribunal held that the appellant was required to maintain a garden which is an obligation under the relevant pollution control law and CENVAT Credit with respect to the services used for maintaining the garden would therefore be admissible. * Housekeeping Service : This issue is covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. [2014 (5) T.M.I. 724 - CESTAT New Delhi] wherein the Bench has ruled in favour of the assessee. * Transport Charges : In Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-III v. M/s. Gray Gold Cements Ltd. [2014 (9) T.M.I. 673 - Andhra Pradesh High Court], the Hon'ble High Court has held that the credit of inpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 04.05.2016 * Communication Charges * Other Rental Charges * Travel Charges the denial of refund of input credit is required to be upheld for want of explanation insofar as the nature and purpose of the above services has not been explained by the assessee. Hence, we uphold the findings in the impugned order. 9.4 Further, even in respect of the service of 'External Consultant' which is denied vide Order-in-Original No. 128/2016 (R) dated 04.05.2016 on the ground of Incorrect Invoice/Excess Credit, we see no explanation offered by the assessee and hence, the denial of refund is upheld. 10. With regard to the issue of non-disclosure of CENVAT Credit in the ST-3 returns, we find that the appellant had contended that the credits were included in the CENVAT Credit Register, which fact has not at all been denied by the authorities below. In this regard, we find the decision in M/s. Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to be very much apt wherein, the co-ordinate Bangalore Bench has inter alia ruled that the denial of refund only on the basis of non-disclosure of CENVAT Credit in ST-3 return was not legally sustainable, in the following words: "5. After consideri....