There is one more ground on which the refund claim has been rejected i.e. prior to 16.05.2006 the appellant did not have registration as an input service distributor and hence the appellant could not have availed service tax credit on ISD basis. However, what is required to be seen is whether the appellant received the services at Nasik and if so the appellant used the same for rendering of the output service. These facts need to be verified by the revenue instead of summarily rejecting the claim.
It is well settled that the assessee is entitled to take CENVAT credit of service tax paid by them on the services availed by them in the course of business of manufacturing as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244 (Bom.).
In the present case, M/s Kijiji (India) (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants) was engaged in providing Business auxiliary services to their customers located abroad. The appellant filed a refund claim for the service tax paid on input services such as legal services, market data, payroll processing, customers support activities, etc.,
It is evident that all the services are essential in running the business of rendering the output service ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ which is exported. If that be so, all the services come within the purview of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which defines the input service.
CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH B.E. Billimoria & Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Application No. ST/S/729 of 2012 Appeal No. ST/211 of 2012 June 5, 2012 ORDER Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Appellant are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the service tax demand of Rs. 14,28,30,465/- along with interest and equivalent penalty […]
‘Courier service’ is input service, if ownership of goods sent remains with sender till delivery to customer & courier charges form part of goods sent
As per explanation to Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, storage tanks have been specified as capital goods and, therefore, inputs which are used in the manufacture of capital goods are also eligible for CENVAT credit. It is not in dispute that the steel items such as M.S. angles, H.R. sheets have not been used in the construction of storage tank which is a capital goods therefore, CENVAT credit on these M.S. angle and H.R. Sheet cannot be denied.
There is also no dispute as to the fact the water pumped from river Kundalika is used as a coolant in the manufacturing process. If that be so, the pumping of water from the banks of river Kundalika is integrally connected to the manufacturing process and the security services used therein becomes an input service in terms of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Tribunal has held that although the documents are not in the name of the assessee’s factory but same are in the name of the head office of the assessee and there is no dispute about the input service received by the assessee. Therefore, substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds.
Service Tax dispute: S.S. Construction vs Commissioner of Central Excise. Remanded for reconsideration. Balance-sheet vs ST-3 Returns. Get details on TaxGuru.in.
