9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Excise Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund - refund allowed. Direction to appellant to file declaration that service provider has remitted the service tax to the Central Government - Held that:- We cannot find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices and filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006. The original authority sanctioned part of the refund and rejected the balance against which the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the first issue with regard to eligibility of credit on various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai - 2017 (3) GSTL 45 (Mad.). With regard to the third issue, wherein the original authority below directed the appellant to file a declaration that the service provider has remitted the service tax to the Central Government, the ld. counsel submitted that neither the CENVAT Credit Rules nor the Notification provides such condition and therefore the direction is without any legal basis. She p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the original authority has directed the appellant to file a declaration that the service provider has remitted the service tax to the Central Government. We cannot find any sustenance for this direction either from the CENVAT Credit Rules or the Notification. In view thereof, we set aside this direction of the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund sanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
