9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services, the Department themselves felt that these services have nexus with their output services - the ground taken by the Department to the extent of these services are no longer tenable and on this ground itself the input services availed in respect of these services would have to be considered as having nexus with their output services and to that extent they are also eligible for refund under the extent rule - the entire rejection on the grounds of not having nexus would not be sustainable. Error in computing the eligible refund, resulting in excess rejection of claim - HELD THAT:- The refund rules and as per the formula, Gross Eligible Cenvat Credit and not Closing Cenvat Balance for this calculation of refund amount. This view is also supported by the case law in Commissioner of CGST C.Ex, Mumbai Vs Morgan Stanley Investment Management Pvt Ltd. [ 2018 (5) TMI 400 - CESTAT MUMBAI ]. Therefore, denial of refund on this account is not tenable. Service Tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism - HELD THAT:- Learned Counsel for the appellant informs that the challans/invoices are available and same can be produced before the Original Authority. He also submits that this service is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd., [2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-ST] Therefore, Learned Advocate is submitting that in view of settled position, either in terms of accepted order of Department or the case laws cited by him, barring certain amount which he had himself admitted as not eligible and is not contested, rest of the amount is not sustainable against them. 4. Details of amount involved in each of these 8 appeals, amount settled / allowed by Department during pending of appeal, balance amount for which appellants are pushing the appeal are given below in Tabular Form for ease of reference: Sl. No. CESTAT Appeal No. Order-in-Original No. Order-in-Appeal Covered in the appeal Amount of claim pending in Tribunal in terms of appeal Refund already allowed post filing of appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal vide Denovo OIO No.16/2024 (Service Tax-R) dated 07.01.2014 Net Balance of Refund Pending in CESTAT in different Appeal 1 ST/1898/12 162/2011 Dt:29-Nov-2011 19/2012. Dt:22-Mar-12 13,28,494 13,28,494 2 ST/1901/12 191/2011 Dt:29-Oct-2011 2011 22/2012 Dt:22-Mar-12 48,50,122 40,25,283 8,24,839 3 ST/1899/12 169/2011 Dt:29- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these services, same have been held to be having nexus with the final output services and in lieu of various case laws cited and therefore eligible for refund. Therefore, taking both these aspects together, the entire rejection on the grounds of not having nexus would not be sustainable. Rejection on account of technical and procedural non-compliance: Coming to the other grounds taken by the Department for rejecting the claim, we find that the claims have rejected on various grounds, and they are taken up for discussion, as under: i) Error in computing the eligible refund, resulting in excess rejection of claim - This rejection of about Rs. 4,86,163/- covered in these appeals were due to wrong application of formula by the Department. The formula applied by the Department for computing the refund was on the Closing Cenvat Balance instead of the Gross Eligible Cenvat Credit. We have perused the refund rules and as per the formula, Gross Eligible Cenvat Credit and not Closing Cenvat Balance for this calculation of refund amount. This view is also supported by the case law in Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex, Mumbai Vs Morgan Stanley Investment Management Pvt Ltd., [2018 (363) ELT 1158 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd it was only the case of additional premises which was in the process of being added to the central registration and therefore this appears to be a procedural error and it needs to be verified whether the central registration was in existence and there was a process already initiated by the Department for adding the additional premises on the date of those invoices were issued on which service tax has been admittedly paid by the appellant. Moreover, the judgments cited by both the sides would become applicable when there was no registration at all, whereas, in the factual matrix of this case, there appears to be central registration already in existence and the invoices being apparently been issued after the date of central registration. These facts need to be checked. There is an amount of Rs. 2,03,867/- involved in all these appeals on account of procedural lapse. Learned Advocate is not able to explain other procedural lapses and therefore he is not pressing for this amount. 8. Therefore, taking these 8 appeals together, we find that as against total refund claim, certain amount has been allowed by the Original Sanctioning Authority and certain amounts have been further allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
