Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jmc Project (India) Ltd vs C.C.E. , Ahmedabad on 9 June, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Service Tax Appeal No.379 of 2011-SM Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.31/2011(STC)/K. Anpazhkan/Commr (A)/Ahd dated 17.3.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise , Ahmedabad. JMC Project (India) Ltd .. Appellant Vs. C.C.E. , Ahmedabad .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Ishan Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri T.K. Sikdhar, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 09.06.2017 Final Order No.11264/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 31/2011(STC)/K. Anpazhkan/Commr (A)/Ahd dated 17.3.2011 assed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise , Ahmedabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed refund claim of Rs.36,28,848/- on the ground that they could not avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on various input services during the period 2008-09 and 2009-10 as shown in the invoices. The said refund claim was rejected and hence, aggrieved by the same, they filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that they were under confusion about the eligibility of CENVAT credit on input services during the relevant period as they were providing both taxable as well as exempted services. Accordingly, the service tax paid against the respective input service invoices since could not be availed as credit be refunded to them.
3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
4. I find that the refund claim of the Appellant is misplaced inasmuch as the service tax paid by various input service providers, has been claimed as refund on the plea that the appellant during the relevant period, could not take credit and utilize the same in discharging their service tax liability for providing taxable output service due to confusion. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected their contention after analyzing the provision of law observing that such refund is not supported by any of the provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and hence not eligible. I do not find any discrepancy in the reasoning of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) scd/ 4 Appeal No.ST/379/2011-SM 1