9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit on the input service in question attained finality and when this be so then by filing the appeal against the sanctioned order of the refund dispute about admissibility of the service for purpose of allowing the Cenvat credit cannot be raised. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this very ground rejected the appeal of the revenue. From the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) it can be seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the revenue on the threshold point that the department has not taken any action under rule 14 for disputing the admissibility of input service in question. The findings of the learned commissioner (Appeals) based on various judgments. Therefore, this issue is no longer res-integra. Wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness Auxilary Service (ii) Banking and Financial Service (iii) Chartered Accountant Service (iv) Legal Consultancy Service (v) Renting of Immovable Property Service and (vi) Legal and Professional Service etc. 1.2 The appellant against the export of goods wherein these services said to be used filed refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat credit rules 2004. The adjudicating/ sectioning authority sectioned the refund claim after detailed scrutiny of the claim. The revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the said services on which Cenvat credit was availed do not have nexus with the final product which have been exported. The learned commissioner appeals on the ground that since, no proceeding under rule 14 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily Engineering Plastics Ltd vs. C.C.E. S.T.-Vadodara-Order No. A/13519-13530/2017 dated 15.11.2017 Unisys Global Services India vs CST, Bangalore - 2017 (11) TMI 1403 - CESTAT-BANGLORE. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Noida 2024 (1) TMI 333 ALLAHABAD CESTAT State Street Syntel Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST Service Tax, Navi Mumbai-2023 (12) TMI 569 CESTAT MUMBAI Microsoft Global Services Center (India) Private Limited and Microsoft India (R D) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax Hyderabad-IV-2020 (10) TMI 57 HYDERABAD CESTAT Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax vs. FTD India Pvt Ltd 2017 (10) TMI 22 CESTAT HYDERABAD EXL Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice for purpose of allowing the Cenvat credit cannot be raised. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this very ground rejected the appeal of the revenue. The relevant finding of the commissioner (Appeals) order is reproduced below: Para-7. The appellant contention regarding the inadmissibility of Cenvat credit on the account that the services used, do not fall in the ambit of input services as defined in the Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not admissible at this stage. In this regard I find that if, there is a dispute regarding availment of credit on ineligible input/input service, a show cause notice for demand and recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit should have been issued under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
