9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21910/2014 - A/30097/2017 - Dated:- 19-1-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri. Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri. M. Chandra Bose, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER The above appeal is filed against rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 08.06.2012. The appellants filed a refund claim of ₹ 36,75,296/- being the unutilized CENVAT credit for the period October 2012, to December, 2012. The refund sanctioning authority allowed refund of ₹ 33,31,875/- and disallowed refund of ₹ 3,43,421/-. Against the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses of employees travelling abroad for business purpose. Indirectly connected to output service. 4. Manpower Recruitment or supply agency Services 1,75,670 Supply of manpower/housekeeping do not qualify as input service. Recruitment is specifically covered within the ambit of input service and is essential to recruit employees. 5. Business Support Services/Custom House Agent's Services 39,581 Supply of audio visual equipment is not input service/ Copies of challans not submitted. It is required to maintain proper documentation and are in the nature of business support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Maruthi Suzuki Ltd., Vs. Commissioner [2009(240) ELT 640 (S.C.) to hold that the input services do not have nexus with the output services exported by the appellant. It is also argued by the Counsel that in the appellant s own case for the earlier period in the case of M/s. Convergys Information Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Hyderabad vide Final Order No. 20333 20334/2015 dated 16.02.2015, the Tribunal has analyzed the eligibility of refund in respect of the above said services and as held that the appellant is eligible for refund. That the name of the appellant company was earlier M/s. Convergys Information Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., and has now been changed as M/s. Netcracker Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arsh and violation of principles of natural justice. The relevant portion is as under: The issuance of show-cause notice puts the affected person on notice as to what is the department's case/view on the refund claim. The notice should specify the reasons on which the department proposes to reject the refund claim. By such notice, the assessee gets an opportunity to understand the grounds on which the refund is liable to be rejected. The assessee can then defend the notice by putting forward necessary evidence establishing the assessee's case. Non-issuance of such a notice deprives the assessee of a fair opportunity to know the allegation as well as to put forward his defence. This is blatant violation of the principles of natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accumulated credit. The relevant portion which as under: Nowhere in Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004, is there any condition of establishing a nexus between the input service credit taken and the output service exported Notification No. 5/2006-ST also does not stipulate any such condition. So long as the credit is admissible and has been taken and lying accumulated and [he exporter is unable to utilize the credit, he is eligible for refund of(he accumulated credit. This is the whole purpose and aim of Rule 5 of the CCR Rule, 2004. The board's clarification also makes this point very clear. The decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Copiq Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and Amdocs Business Services Pvt. Ltd., also support this view. Moreover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
