9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input services for the export service, there is no documentary evidence with regard to the use of the services, not submitted the rent agreement in respect of the input service provider, there is no correlation with the FIRC and export invoices ..etc. HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that Appellant has made claim the refund of CENVAT credit for the services rendered by them for export of goods. While considering the issue in the matter of M/s Eveready Industries India Ltd [ 2016 (4) TMI 688 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as held once an application for refund is allowed under Section 11B, the expression erroneous refund appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 11A cannot be applied. If an order of refund is passed after adjudication, the amount refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the export of output service. The Adjudicating authority held that the assessee had not produced any evidence in support of the utilization of the input services for the export service, there is no documentary evidence with regard to the use of the services, not submitted the rent agreement in respect of the input service provider, there is no correlation with the FIRC and export invoices ..etc. Thus the claim was rejected by the Adjudication authority. Aggrieved by said order, an Appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) held that as per the records, there is no ambiguity in the factual position that Appellant was in possession of Centralized registration under Service Tax with effect from 20.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by this Tribunal vide orders dated 04.09.2013, 11.09.2013 12.08.2013, the said refund claims involved herein had been taken up for further adjudication by the then jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore and the above said common Order-in-Original Nos. 105/2014-Refund (C No. IV/16/72/2012 ST DIV II R-IV, Denovo) dated 09.06.2014 came to be passed as per the order of the Commissioner s (Appeals). 4. When the present appeals were came up for hearing on 20.09.2021, as directed by this Tribunal, Learned AR produced a memo specifying that the refund was made as follows:- Period Refund claim In Rs. Refund revised in Denovo Adjudication Jan-09 to Mar -09 42,73,752 6,09,767 April-09 to June-09 4,08,01,708/- 23,07,207 July- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken note by the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal. 7. Regarding the allegation that there is no nexus between the input services and output services, Ld Counsel draw our attention to the Circular dated 19.01.2010 and also judgments of this Tribunal in the matter of CCE Vs M/s Ravi Foods Ltd (2011 (271) E.L.T 436 (Tri. Bang) , M/s Nitin Spinners Ltd Vs CCE (2017 (52) STR 172 (Tri.Del), CST Vs Nuware Systems (P) Ltd (2013 (31) STR 716), CCE Vs Tilda Riceland Pvt Ltd (2015 (323) E.L.T 615 (Tri.Del), M/s TVS Motor Company Ltd Vs CCE (2017 (5) GSTL 85 (Tri.Bang), M/s S.K Timber Company Vs CC (Port) (2021 (377) E.L.t 454 (Tri.Kol), Pr. CCT Vs Huwaei Technologies India Pvt Ltd (2022 (60) GSTL 24 (Kar), P.A Consulting Services (Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uting B-8 security bond and on furnishing a bank guarantee. The Department has to follow the procedure under Section 35E for setting aside the Annexure-I certificate. Unless, the Annexure-I certificate is cancelled or rejected by the Competent Authority, by following the procedure under Section 35E, it is not permissible for the respondents to invoke Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issuance of show cause notices is without jurisdiction and is liable to be struck down. 51 . We are of the considered view that the paragraph extracted above is a complete answer to the question of law now raised. Unfortunately, in none of the decisions relied upon by the learned standing counsel, the Courts were confr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, it is set aside. 11. One of the ground in the present appeals is that as per impugned order, appellate authority only allowed the appeal partially whereas in the order portion, it is this allowed without any quantification. However as per the memo filed by the appellant on 01.11.2021, in De-novo adjudication, adjudicating authority only allowed refund partially as directed by the first appellate authority and not sanctioned full refund as claimed by the appellant in the grounds of appeals. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, the Commissioner appeals rightly passed impugned order considering the statutory provision and decisions of the appellate authorities. Hence there is no infirmity in the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
