The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi Bench set aside rejection of claim of refund holding that there has been wrong interpretation of relevant provisions and notifications.
The Appellant, M/s. Selling Simplified India Private Limited is engaged in rendering taxable services of business support to the following group companies i.e Selling Simplified Group, Selling Simplified Inc, Selling Simplified Ltd. U.K. Three of the companies are located outside of India. The appellant is availing Cenvat credit of input services used to render the said output service as they are paying service tax on such input services.
The appellant filed the refund claim amounting to Rs.9,97,364/- under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with several documents. Department observed that the appellant had centralized service tax registration for the premises at G-92, Basement, Kalkaji, Delhi but have claimed some input service credit for the services utilized at the premises located at Noida, the unregistered premises.
Some export invoices were also raised from the said unregistered premises. With these observations, the department formed an opinion that appellants should get registration for their Noida premises also. Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice No. 01/2021, department proposed the rejection of the refund claim. The said proposal has initially been confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No.01/2021. The appeal there against has been rejected vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal.
The Single Bench consisting of Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member observed that “It is held that Adjudicating Authority while rejecting the claim on the ground of jurisdiction has definitely travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. The appellant since admittedly has centralized registration in terms of sub clause (2) and (3) of Rule 4 hence Noida unit was not required to be registered. Refund claim should not have been rejected on this ground. The services provided by the appellant amounts to export of service as were received by the company located outside the taxable territory irrespective those were the group companies of the appellant.”
“The order under challenge is held to be the result of wrong interpretation of the relevant provisions and notifications” The Tribunal added.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
