9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 880/2017-SM, ST/20881/2017-SM, ST/20883/2017-SM, ST/20884/2017-SM, ST/20885/2017-SM - Final Order No. 22909-22913 / 2017 - Dated:- 27-10-2017 - SHRI S. S. GARG, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Arjun Jain, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Naveen Kushalappa, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. GARG Appellants have filed these five appeals against the common impugned order dated 3.3.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has partially allowed the appeal of the appellant with certain directions. The Commissioner (A) has decided the appeals on principle and directed the lower authorities for quantification and verification of documents and then allow the refund. 2. Since the issue in all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.32,37,582/- Rs.3,28,926/- ST/20884/2017 Oct. - Dec. 2014 Rs.75,98,884/- Rs.68,95,746/- Rs.7,03,138/- ST/20885/2017 Jan. - Mar. 2015 Rs.68,68,170/- Rs.61,44,087/- Rs.4,89,429/- 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund on the ground of lack of nexus is not sustainable in law and is contrary to the definition of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and also contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices would be eligible as CENVAT credit. He also submitted that the term activities relating to business in the definition of input service have wide interpretation and the input services in question are integral to the business operations of the company. He also submitted that the original authority have rejected the refund on the input services by holding that the such services do not fall in the definition of input services without any basis. In support of his submission, the appellant relied upon the following decisions: Sonus Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST: 2017 (7) TMI 943 GE India Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2016 (44) STR 693 (Tri.-Hyd.) Xilinx India Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2016 (4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned order denying the refund with regard to certain input services is not sustainable in law. All the services have been held to be input service in various decisions relied upon by the appellant and the details of the invoices have also been given along with the appeal memorandum. Further, I also find that the original authority has committed computation error in determining the amount of refund which is eligible by wrongly applying the method for computation of refund. In view of my discussions above, I allow all the five appeals subject to the direction to the original authority to recompute the refund amount in accordance with law after aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
