9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of Cenvat credit. In fact, there is no one to one correlation between the input/ input services on which Cenvat credit has been taken and the exported services. The refund is allowed only as per the formula given under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006, on a proportionate basis. The rejection of refund is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 2951 of 2011 - A/30588/2020 - Dated:- 24-2-2020 - HON'BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appearance Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri L.V. Rao, Authorized Representative for the Respondent. [Order per: P.V. SUBBA RAO.] 1. This appeal is filed against Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5/2006 which is as follows: Refund eligible = Total Cenvat credit utilized X Export turnover of excisable services Total turnover of services = 3674403 X 423219986 423912173 = ₹ 35,09,134/- 4. As can be seen from this formula, there is no scope for determining the nexus while allowing or disallowing refund of Cenvat credit. If any Cenvat credit is to be held inadmissible the same must be done by issuing notice under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 which has not been done in this case. In other words, they have been allowed Cenvat credit but have only been denied its refund which is not sustainable. There is no requirement of establishing nexus of individual services as far as the refund is concerned; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices is allowed by the Hon ble Tribunal in the appellant s own cases in the following orders Final Order No. Date of Order Period of Dispute A/30065/2016 20.01.2016 Oct-09 to Dec-09 5. Gym/Health Club service (Renting of immovable property services) Refund on the said services is allowed by the Hon ble Tribunal in the appellant s own cases in the following orders Final Order No. Date of Order Perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of CCR, 2004 alleging that there was no nexus between the output and input services. It is now a well settled legal position that denial of Cenvat credit must be done, if necessary, only by issuing notice under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004. Having allowed the Cenvat credit or having not denied the Cenvat credit, they cannot reject refund of Cenvat credit. In fact, there is no one to one correlation between the input/ input services on which Cenvat credit has been taken and the exported services. The refund is allowed only as per the formula discussed above on a proportionate basis. In view of the above, I find that the rejection of refund claim is unsustainable and the impugned order needs to be set aside and I do so. 8. The impugned order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
