9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices. The appellant has provided details of various services that were used during the relevant period for providing output services. Major part of the refund is for the period prior 01.04.2011 and a small amount of refund is for period after 01.04.2011. On perusal of the nature of the services, it is seen that in the case of M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, LTU, MUMBAI [ 2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI] the issue of nexus and the eligibility of credit of all services impugned herein were considered by the Tribunal and held in favour of the assessee - Similarly, in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [ 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period from February 2008 to March 2012. After due process of law, the original authority sanctioned part of the refund and rejected the balance amount. Against this, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who initially remanded the matter for reconsideration of the issue. In Denovo adjudication, a part of the refund claim was rejected. In appeal vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri Rahul Binani appeared and argued the matter. He submit that the main reason for rejecting the refund was that the appellant has not established the nexus of the input services with the output services provided. He submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund claim has been rightly rejected. He has also stressed that the appellant has not established the nexus of the input services with the output services and therefore not eligible for refund. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of records, we find that the main reason for rejecting the refund is that the appellant has not established the nexus of the input services with that of the output services. A perusal of Rule 5 contained in CCR 2004 would show that it does not say that the appellant has to establish the nexus of the input services with the output services. The refund is eligible of the credit of the input services which are used for output services. The appellant has provided details of various services that were used during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
