2016 (6) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri S.Thirumalai, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Amish Gupta, AR for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim. 1.1 The appellants filed refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 claiming refund of the accumulated Cenvat Credit lying in their account, as they were not in a position to utilize the credit taken on input/input services used in providing output services exported without payment of service tax during the month October, 2009 to December, 2009. A Show Cause Notice was served proposing rejection of the claim on certain grounds. After adjudication, the primary authority sanctioned an amou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 40,685 Insurance Services(Mediclaim for employees) 754,745 Tour operator Services 13,616 Total 1,095,233 3. The credit has been denied contending that there is no nexus between input services and output services provided by the appellant. The period involved is prior to 01-04-2011 when the definition of input services included the activities relating to business . In a catena of judgments it has been eld that the definition as it existed prior to 01-04-2011 would cover every conceivable service used in the business of assessee. 4. The learned AR Shri Amish Gupta pointed out that the medical insuran .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e tax paid on insurance services for employees is eligible for credit. The same requires quantification. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of quantification of eligible credit ie. insurance services of employees only. 5. In regard to the remaining services listed in the above table, the issue is settled by numerous judgments. KPMG Vs CCE, 2013-TIOL-761-CESTAT-Del., CST, Bangalore Vs Mercedes Benz Research Development India(P)Ltd. 2013(30) STR 257(Tri-Bang), CCE VS HCL Technologies(2014) 52 Taxmann.com393( Allahabad), Coco Cola India(P)Ltd. Vs CCE, Pune-2009(242) ELT 168(Bom) are some of the cases in the long list. Therefore, I hold that the refund of credit on all services except In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X