9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a 100% EOU and cleared their finished products / services for export without payment of duty under bond with bank guarantee. They received various input services like maintenance service, manpower supply service, rent-a-cab service, air travel agency service etc, from various service providers. They availed CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on such input services. Since the credit remained unutilized as their output services were exported, the assessee filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 r/w Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006. The refund sanctioning authority rejected the claim for the following reasons:- (a) The input services do not have nexus with the output service and does not qualify as input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility of refund of credit availed prior to 14.3.2006, the view of adjudicating authority was upheld. (d) This view of the adjudicating authority was set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that in the absence of the Notification No.5/2006 requiring to raise the invoices within period of 14 days in terms of Rule 4A such condition cannot be insisted. 4. Aggrieved by the order of rejecting the refund claim on issue (c) as well as the order passed directing the appellant to file declaration as per Circular dated 19.1.2010 in respect of issue (a), the appellant has filed Appeal No. ST/648/2010. The department has filed Appeal No. ST/607/2010 aggrieved by the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) that Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules need not be fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition, the assessee is not eligible for refund. Countering the argument of the Id- Counsel for the appellant with regard to the direction of remand made by the Commissioner (Appeals), he submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has powers to remand the matter. He relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. A.S. Babu Sah Designs & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors. - 2017 VIL 427-MAD-ST. It was also argued by the Ida AR that the Circular dated 19.1.2010 made the processing of refund claims easier when the declaration as prescribed in the circular is filed by the assessee. Only to facilitate the processing of refund claim, the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the assessee to file the declaration. 7. Heard both sides. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, we do not find any irregularity in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the eligibility of refund in respect of input services. While we uphold such direction made by the Commissioner (Appeals), we direct that the adjudicating authority shall take into consideration the case laws that have been laid with regard to eligibility of credit/refund on various input services and also take into account that the period involved is prior to l.4.2011, when the definition of input services had a wider ambit. 8.2 With regard to the issue of Rule 4A, which is challenged by the department in their appeal, we are in agreement with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that raising invoice within 14 days is merely a pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
