9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Respondent-Assessee was engaged in providing taxable services namely "Information Technology Service". During the period from October 2014 to December 2014, the Respondent-Assessee was exporting Information Technology Software Service and had DTA clearances. 3. The Respondent-Assessee filed a refund claim for Rs. 30,00,00,000/- on 09.07.2015 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/12-CENT dated 18.06.2012 for the quarter October 2014 to December 2014. The Adjudicating Authority, after scrutinizing the refund claim filed by the Respondent-Assessee, passed the Order-in-Original dated 18.09.2015 and sanctioned the refund claim in its entirety. 4. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Credit Rules read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for denial and recovery of Cenvat credit, alleging that the credit was not admissible because the services on which credit was taken were not falling under the definition of 'Input Service'. Therefore, since no SCN has been issued previously disputing the taking of Cenvat credit itself, the same cannot be disputed at the stage when the Appellant has filed refund applications under Rule 5 of Credit Rules. As the credit has not been denied under Rule 14, therefore the same is available to the Appellant and a refund of the same is to be allowed under Rule 5 of the Credit Rules. Therefore, the observation in Order-in-original were without jurisdiction as no SCN was not issued. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact on record that the department had not proceeded against the appellant for effecting recovery of the allegedly availed irregular Cenvat credit, by taking recourse to Rule 14 ibid read with Section 73 ibid. On the other hand, the department had raised the issue of non-establishment of nexus between the input services and exported output service for the first time, while adjudicating the subject refund claims filed under Rule 5 ibid by the appellant." 11. Further, this issue has been settled in a plethora of decisions some of which are as under:- M/s HCL Technologies Ltd., v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2023 (10) TMI 959-CESTAT ALLAHABAD HCL Comnet Systems and Services v. CC & CE & ST, Noida, 2016 (8) TMI 1236-CESTAT ALLAH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
