Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 201 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of CENVAT Credit - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - period from October 2016 to December 2016 and January 2017 to March 2017 - Room/Laundry Service - HELD THAT:- The issue has been settled in the case of M/S ONE ADVERTISING & COMMUNICATION SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS CST AHMEDABAD. [2012 (5) TMI 219 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] where credit on similar services allowed - appellant is entitled to refund on the service. Insurance and AMC charges - HELD THAT:- The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, GUNTUR VERSUS CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. [2009 (3) TMI 136 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where it was held that these services have been received or rendered only in relation to the manufacture of final products and the credit was allowed - appellant entitled to credit on such services. APR Certification/CA Services - HELD THAT:- The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM VERSUS ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD. [2010 (2) TMI 532 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where it was held that credit is allowed on such services - refund allowed. Legal Expenses - HELD THAT:- The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. HCL TECHNOLOGIES [2014 (11) TMI 663 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where credit on such services allowed - refund allowed on the service. With regard to the other claim of ₹ 2,00,775/- being not considered for refund, I find that there is no finding given by both the lower authorities and therefore, in the interests of justice, this requires fresh adjudication - matter remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority who shall pass a de novo order on this issue after considering all the contentions urged by the appellant. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|