BAIN CAPITAL ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF S.T.
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-164
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 27,2015

Bain Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commr. of S.T. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.RAVINDRAN,MEMBER (J) - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. PD/518/S.T. -I/2014, dated 16 -4 -2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai -IV. The facts of the case in brief is that the appellants are registered with the Service Tax department under the category of "Banking and other Financial Services". They filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006, dated 14 -6 -2006 and Notification No. , dated 19 -4 -2005. The department while scrutinising the said refund claims had allegedly found some discrepancies that were communicated to the appellant through show cause notice or deficiency memo etc. After hearing the appellant, the refund claims were disposed of. Refund claims for the period July, 2008 to March, 2010 (in all four) were totally rejected on merits. Refund claims for the period April, 2010 to March, 2011 (one) was partly sanctioned and partly rejected on merits. Refund claims for the period April, 2012 to June 2012 (one) was rejected on issue of law as well as on merits.
The appellant herein aggrieved by such order -in -original, preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, by the impugned order, rejected all the six appeals. As against all the six orders, the appellant preferred appeals before the Tribunal and five appeals were decided and disposed of by this Bench vide final order No. A/1665 -1669/CSTB/CI, dated 16 -10 -2014. This appeal is the sixth appeal, for the period April 2012 to June 2012.

(2.)THE learned Sr. Advocate, after taking us through the show cause notice, order -in -original and the impugned order, would submit that the refund claim has been rejected only on the ground that the appellant had filed the refund claim on 29 -6 -2012 whereas the invoices, which has been raised by the appellant is on 30 -6 -2012; also that the rebate claim filed by the appellant is bad in law; and the amount of service tax paid is not reflected in the ST -3 returns.
(3.)THE learned counsel would submit that though the invoice is raised on 30 -6 -2012, the said invoice specifically indicates that the service tax, education cess, secondary and higher education cess is being indicated only for the purpose of paying it from the Cenvat credit balance and claiming it as refund/rebate under Notification 11/2005 -S.T. He would take us through the said invoice as also the foreign inward remittance certificate issued by the bankers for the amounts being received. He would then draw our attention to the Cenvat credit register maintained by the appellant and submit that most of the service liability stands debited in the account on 29 -6 -2012. It is also his submission that the findings of the appellate as well as the adjudicating authorities are contrary to the factual position.
The learned Departmental Representative would submit that the amounts which have been indicated by the appellant as received in foreign exchange is not tallying with the amount which has been billed by the appellant for the services rendered. He would also draw our attention to the fact that the ST -3 returns do not indicate as to the gross amount having been received in advance and it is not clear that the appellant had received what amounts for the services rendered. He would also submit that the rebate claim has been filed by the appellant on 29 -6 -2012 whereas the invoice is of 30 -6 -2012; claim was raised even before the issue of invoice or providing services.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.