9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed in this appeal by the Appellant. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant is engaged in providing 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'Manpower Requirement and Supply Agency Services' to its customers located outside India and is receiving convertible foreign currency that qualified Appellant as export of service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Appellant had used certain input services and availed benefit of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 17.03.2012 and sought for refund of Rs.3,83,03,400/- under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the quarter from January, 2016 to March, 2016. The refund sanctioning Authority allowed refund of Rs.3,73,48,820/- vide Order-in- Original dated 26.03.2018 and deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Auxiliary Services', which Appellant had already brought to the knowledge of the refund sanctioning Authority that under that category some excess payment was made for which adjustment was done by the Appellant on Service Tax paid under 'Business Auxiliary Services', refund was refused and, therefore, he pleaded for setting aside of the order of Commissioner to the extent of rejection of refund against credit accumulated from services availed on 'legal service'. 4. Per contra, learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner and took us to page no. 69 of the appeal memo to justify that adjustment of excess amount paid earlier as Service Tax was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir partly consumed CENVAT Credit statement, I find that they have taken credit for Legal Services, whereas given G.A.R.-7 Challan pertains Business Auxiliary Services, Cab Operators Services and Sponsorship Services. Thus, I find that refund of CENVAT Credit pertains to Sr. No. 278 to 308 of their partly consumed services CENVAT Credit statement amounting to Rs.8,75,,340/- are not admissible to them and same is liable for rejection. (Underlined to emphasise) From the above I find that total refund of Rs.9,47,018/- (i.e. Rs.71,678/- plus Rs.8,75,340/-) in respect of their partly consumed services are inadmissible to them and liable for rejection." On going through the above findings it is very clear that on account of legal services av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected in the duty paying document and that to the satisfaction of the Dy. Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise about its receipt and accounting for, then the discretion lies with the refund sanctioning Authority namely the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to allow the CENVAT Credit or not and such discretion having been exercised judicially, as could be noticed from the paragraph extracted above, I find no irregularity on the part of Assistant Commissioner (Refunds-II) CGST, Mumbai East in not allowing the same refund that got confirmed by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the order. THE ORDER 7. The appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Commissioner of GST & CX (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
