TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebate on the ground of not opting for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, is not sustainable in law and therefore, appellants are entitled to the rebate under the provisions of Notification 11/2005 - The appellant is also entitled to rebate under Notification 11/2005 since all conditions are fulfilled by the Appellant. Rebate also rejected on the ground that there is no direct nexus between the input service and the output services - HELD THAT:- This ground is also not sustainable - The appellant produced various decisions wherein these services have been held to be input services and has nexus with the output service - Further, in case of a rebate, the question of which input was used in terms of availment of cenvat credit does not arise as se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification 11/2005dated April 19, 2005. Appellant has not complied with conditions of Notification 11/2005. Appellant has failed to produce details of Cenvat credit availed/utilized, maintenance of proper records showing the receipt and consumption of the input services etc. Input services have no relation to the output service. They are not directly or indirectly related to the export services rendered. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, the appeals are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The details of the rebate claims in both the appeals and other details are given herein below: Particulars Description Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, show-cause notices were issued to the appellant seeking rejection of the claims on various discrepancy/shortcomings. After considering the reply filed by the appellant, the original authority rejected the rebate claims. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who upheld the OIOs and rejected the rebate claims on the findings recorded in para 1 above. Hence, these present appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that all the conditions under the rebate notification have been satisfied and all documents have been submitted. The conditions as satisfied by the Appellant were summarized as follows: Taxable service has been exported in terms of Rule 3 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence of payment of service tax and cess on taxable services exporterie, copy of service tax return filed for the impugned period evidencing the utilization of CENVAT credit towards remittance of Service Tax and cess. Declaration stating that the services have been exported in terms of Rule 3. Relevant documentary evidence evidencing export of taxable service has been provided. 4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the impugned orders rejecting the rebate claim are not sustainable in law as the Appellant has the option to choose the notification under which rebate is to be claimed. It is a settled position of law that when there is more than one option available to the Appellant to claim refund/reb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission of the learned counsel that Notification No. 11/2005 cannot be read in a narrow manner so as to defeat the object of notification. It is a settled principle of law that a beneficial notification must be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. The Appellant placed reliance on case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. M/s Dilip Kumar and Company Ors-2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) wherein it was held that a beneficial notification must be construed strictly with regard to the letter of the law. 4.5 He also submitted that while dealing with the question of rebate, the question of which input was used in terms of availment of cenvat credit does not arise and placed reliance on the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat credit does not arise as settled by Tribunal judgments quoted by the Appellant. Therefore, we hold that denial of rebate on lack of nexus is not sustainable in law and therefore, we hold that appellants are entitled to the rebate on these input services. 7.2 In respect of the finding of impugned order that the Appellant has failed to produce details of Cenvat credit availed/utilized, maintenance of proper records showing the receipt and consumption of the input services etc., despite Appellant s claim that all the documents were submitted even at the time of rebate claim, we remand back the case to the original authority who will examine the documents. 8. In view of the discussions above, the impugned orders are set aside and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
