Case Law Details
M/s Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C.G.ST.(CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai has allowed refund of Cenvat credit on export of Scientific & Technical Consultancy services. Considering the pricing method, it held that Rule 3 and not Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 was applicable. The Tribunal observed that from payment of material cost plus a markup by the service recipient, it cannot be concluded that goods were made physically available by the service recipient. Pricing method was also held as not a reimbursement. Absence of clause that service recipient was to provide material for R&D was also noted.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, assailing the order dated 05/04/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Raigad in Order-in-Appeal No. MKK/01/RGD-APP/2018-19.
2. The Appellant have filed a refund claim of accumulated Cenvat credit for the input service under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the provision of output services exported for the period April, 2016 to June, 2016 for an amount of Rs. 5,22,74,046/- on 31/03/2017 in terms of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18/06/2012 alongwith supporting documents. Personal hearing was granted to the Appellant. After hearing, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 24/10/2017 held that Scientific & Technical Consultancy Services for the month of June, 2016 cannot be treated as export of service and accordingly recalculated the export turnover and reduced the refund claim by Rs. 13,27,192/-and also rejected the claim of Rs. 4,844/- on the ground that the Appellant has availed ineligible credit. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed Appeal before the Commissioner and the Learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 05/04/2018 the rejected Appeal filed by the Appellant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
