2025-VIL-2185-CESTAT-MUM-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-2185-CESTAT-MUM-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - CENVAT Credit, Export of Services, Place of Provision of Services - The appellant filed claims for refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority on two main grounds: (i) inadmissibility of availment of credit to the extent of Rs. 3,61,15,586, and (ii) ineligibility for the entire refund claim for not having exported services as per Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Whether the original authority was empowered to deny the CENVAT credit on 'inputs' and 'input services' while disposing of the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD - The proceedings for processing of claim for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 do not offer any authority for re-visiting the eligibility to claim CENVAT credit on 'inputs' and 'input services' procured by the claimant. Such disallowance of CENVAT credit can only be done by recourse to Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent of such inadmissibility having been upheld, was held to be not in accordance with law - The appeals were allowed by way of remand - Whether the appellant's activity of coordinating the procurement of 'clinical research' services for its pharmaceutical/biotech clients abroad, along with its Singapore affiliate, should be considered as 'export of service' under the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 - HELD - The lower authorities had proceeded on the premise of 'new law new assessment' without considering the manner in which the activity of 'clinical research' service was to be fastened on the appellant under the new regime - The findings in the separate proceedings, where the tax liability was fastened on the same activity, should be considered by the lower authorities in disposing the application for refund - Further, the factum of 'goods' (samples of the product to be researched) and 'handling' thereof within the framework of Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, as far as the appellant is concerned, had not been dealt with by the lower authorities. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restored the application before the original authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the facts as pleaded by the appellant and the provisions of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?