9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, the appellant has filed the refund application under Rule 5 ibid. It has been mandated in Rule 5 that subject to compliance of the requirement of the notification and observance of the formula prescribed therein, the benefit of refund should be extended to the appellant. Since, the said Rule is silent about the aspect of establishing nexus between the input and the output services, the authorities functioned under the statute cannot go beyond the statutory provisions, in interpreting the provisions differently, in support of rejection of the refund application. There are no merit in the impugned order, insofar as it has denied the benefit of refund to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 07.09.2018, in upholding rejection of refund by the original authority. Feeling agreed with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that for denying the benefit of cenvat credit on the disputed input services, the department has not invoked the provisions of Rule 14 ibid read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and no show cause proceedings were initiated thereunder. Thus, he submits that since Rule 5 ibid dealing with situation of grant of refund does not provide any mechanism for ascertaining the issue whether the specific service is confirming to the definition of input service or not,, denial of refund benefit on such groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of refund should be extended to the appellant. Since, the said Rule is silent about the aspect of establishing nexus between the input and the output services, the authorities functioned under the statute cannot go beyond the statutory provisions, in interpreting the provisions differently, in support of rejection of the refund application. In this case, since no other grounds were raised by the department for denying the benefit of refund other than the nexus aspect, I am of the view that the impugned order denying the benefit of refund on such ground alone, cannot be sustained for judicial scrutiny. 6. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned order, insofar as it has denied the benefit of refund to the appellant. Thus after s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
