Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
Customs and Excise »
  Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 21st October, 2016
 Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 21st October, 2016
 Seeks to amend Notification No. 27/2014-Central Excise
 Government doubles limit of excise duty evasion for arrest and prosecution
 Excise duty evasion limit to warrant arrest revised to Rs 2 crore
 Guidelines for launching of prosecution in relation to offences punishable under the Customs Act, 1962
 GST notification triggers uncertainty over excise duty
 Preparing for GST: govt looking at restructuring excise/customs cadre
 Refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) under Deemed Exports where Duty has been paid from CENVAT Credit and ab-initio waiver is not available.
 CBEC directs customs officials for random search of vessels
 Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 7th July, 2016

IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
March, 03rd 2014
                             2013 (1) ECS (137) (Tri-Mum)


         IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

                                         Court No.

                M/s BNY Mellon International Operation (India) Pvt. Ltd.

                                             Vs.

                    Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III

                          Appeal No. ST/602, 603, 604/2012-Mum.

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P/III/RS/176, 177 & 178 / 2012 dated 25/5/2012 passed by
the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune]

M/s BNY Mellon International Operation (India) Pvt. Ltd.          Appellant

       Vs.

CCE (Appeals), Pune-III                                           Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Ravikumar Yanamandra C.A. for Appellant
Shri V.R. Kulkarni, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent

CORAM

Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)

                                                                  Date of Hearing: 2.11.2012
                                                                  Date of decision:2.11.2012

              ORDER NO A/350-352/2012/SMB/C-IV



       "I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has examined admissibility of
       refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in case of shell India Markets
      Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore ­ 2012 (278) E.L.T 50 (Kar.) and the Hon'ble High
      Court in para 7 of its judgment has held as under:-

             "It is necessary to verify not only that particular input service is consumed
             for providing particular output service but also that eligible service received
             under various invoices have actually gone into consumption for providing
             impugned exported output service and not utilized for other purpose.""
             [Para 6]

Per: Sahab Singh

1.    These are three appeals filed by M/s BNY Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt.
      Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants) against the Order-in-Appeal No..P III/RS/176,
      177 & 178/2012 dated 25.5.2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the case of export of services, in the nature of Business Auxiliary Services. The appellants exported the taxable output services under Rule 3 of the Exports of Service Rules 2005 which has resulted in accumulation of un-utilized credit of service tax availed on input services. Therefore the appellants filed three separate refund claims of Rs. 37,31,850/-, Rs. 30,72,784/-and Rs. 29,35,697/- for the month of October, November, December 2010 respectively. The adjudicating authority has allowed the admissible amount and rejected the partial amounts of Rs. 1,01,903/-, Rs 26,318/- and Rs. 4,60,501/- in respect of the above mentioned period. The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has rejected the appeals of the assessee and the appellants are in the Tribunal against the impugned order. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no dispute with regard to eligibility of the input services in respect of which the refund has been denied by the department. He submitted that adjudicating authority has rejected their refund claim on the ground that these input services have been received by the appellants after the period of export of services. he further submitted that the adjudicating authority has also rejected the refund claim in respect of input services comprising of distribution of Sodexo Meal Passes as the same are in the nature of welfare measure to the employee of the appellants. He submitted that since these services are used in output services of final products the credit of the tax paid on these services is liable to be refunded to them under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 4. The learned Deputy Commissioner (A.R) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. After hearing both sides I find that since the issued involved in all the three appeals is identical I take up all the appeals together. 6. I find that the refund has been denied to the appellant on the ground that refund of Cenvat credit had been claimed in respect of input services received by the appellant after the period of expotand hence cannot be considered as input services used for the purpose of exported service during the period in question. This is a fact on record that these input services were received after the period of export and this fact is not challenged by the appellants. I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has examined admissibility of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in case of shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore ­ 2012 (278) E.L.T 50 (Kar.) and the Hon'ble High Court in para 7 of its judgment has held as under:- "It is necessary to verify not only that particular input service is consumed for providing particular output service but also that eligible service received under various invoices have actually gone into consumption for providing impugned exported output service and not utilized for other purpose." In view of the above decision of the Karnataka High Court, I find that their refund has rightly been rejected by the lower authorities. 7. In respect of two appeals the refund of Cenvat credit in respect of input services pertaining to Meal Vouchers has been denied on the ground that these activities were undertaken by the appellant for welfare of the employees and such activities are not the activities used for providing output service. I find that the Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on the outdoor canteen service is available to the appellant if the employees have not borne the service tax amount and the appellant has not charged the employee for providing the service as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.). Since the appellants are entitled for Cenvat credit of service tax on these services, they will also be eligible for refund of the same under Rule 5 if the services pertain to the period of refund in question. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled for refund of the Cenvat Credit pertaining to these services if the said service was utilized in the period in question and the appellants have not charged their employees for providing these services. 8. In view of the above, Appeal No. E/603/12 and E/604/12 are partly allowed and partly rejected and Appeal no. E/602/12 is rejected. (Pronounced in court)
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Development Software Programming Software Engineering Custom Software Development Requirement Based Software Development Software Solutions Software Serv

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions