9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 - Dated:- 13-1-2016 - SHRI M.V.RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Akbar Basha, CA, Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate, V. Lakshmikumaran V. Sridharan For the Respondent : Shri K. T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) And Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per : ASHOK K. ARYA All the appellants and the respondents have been heard. 2. In all these appeals, common issues are involved; therefore, these are being taken up together for consideration and the decision. It is pointed out that these appeals have arisen out of order-in-appeal No. 355/2008 dated 22.12.2008 and No. 11/2011 dated 30.03.2011. Here the appeals have been filed by the assessee(s) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alore. The Commissioner (Appeals) by the above order No. 355/2008 dated 22.12.2008 had given the refund in respect of the four services namely Maintenance or repair services, Advertisement Services, Manpower Recruitment Services, Security Services and Revenue says that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard is not proper and they have prayed that this order partially allowing the refund of cenvat credit which was rejected by the original order passed by Deputy Commissioner should be set aside. 4. Assessee M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. in respect of order-in-appeal No. 11/2011 dated 30.03.2011 have filed their appeal saying that Commissioner partially upheld the orders-in-original No. 283R/2010 dated 30. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also submitted that the inputs services held as eligible input services for CENVAT credit and refund by the Commissioner (Appeals) do not have a nexus with the output services and are not eligible for the refund of service tax paid for said input services. 5. It has also been pleaded by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of M/s. Dell International Services Pvt. Ltd. that the order-in-appeal in their case wrongly referred their refund claim for verification to original adjudicating authority; Commissioner (Appeals) do not have power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority and whatever cenvat credit had been allowed to them refund/rebate of said credits cannot be denied to them. 6. Learned advocate Shri G. Shivadas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
