9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NTER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND MICROSOFT INDIA (R D) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD-IV [ 2020 (10) TMI 57 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] wherein it is held that ' In the present case, it is an undisputed 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.' Conclusion - The department has filed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original, the Adjudicating Authority made observation that the Respondent-Assessee availed irregular Cenvat credit and such input services do not qualify as input services in terms of 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. 5. Thereafter, the Respondent-Assessee filed an appeal against the order contesting that the Cenvat credit of Rs.91,64,345/- is eligible as the services are covered within the definition of Input Services. The Commissioner (Appeals-I) after duly considering the appeal submissions and case laws provided by the Respondent-Assessee, passed the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.03.2016, wherein it gave a detailed order, after evaluating each and every disputed service (total 13 services) and accordingly passed the order in favor of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d perused the appeal records and the written submissions. 10. We find that the department has filed the appeal without even invoking Rule 14 of the Credit Rules, and without even issuing a SCN, hence the department does not have any 'locus standi' to file this appeal and hence this appeal should be dismissed on this ground only. The respondent has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Global Services Center (India) Private Limited and Microsoft India (R D) Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Hyderabad-IV, 2021 (44) G.S.T.L. 264 (Tri. - Hyd.) wherein following has been held : - 8. Rule 3 (1) ibid is the enabling provision, which entitles a manufacturer or provider of output serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court vide 2017 (12) TMI 1661 - Allahabad High Court CCE, Noida v. Free Scale Semiconductors India (P.) Ltd. Final Order No. A/70385/2017-EX dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble CETAT, Allahabad Indo Solar Ltd. v. CCE Noida, 2017 (357) E.L.T. 915 (Tri-All) Allied Chemical Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Jaipur-I, 2019 (2) TMI 849 - CESTAT NEW DELHI Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, 2017 (7) TMI 760-CESTAT ALLAHABAD CCE, NOIDA v. Free Scale Semiconductors India (P) Ltd., 2017 (4) TMI 1238-CESTAT ALLAHABAD M/s Gemini Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Trivandrum 2020 (1) TMI 844-CESTAT BANGLORE 12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
