Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 56 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated/unutilized Cenvat Credit of Service tax - services exported out of India - rejection of refund on the ground of being ineligible input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 being no nexus with the output services - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No.27/2012 -CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 - period in dispute is October, 2016 to March, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the matter of M/S BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTION PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI EAST [2021 (12) TMI 676 - CESTAT MUMBAI] this Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee therein allowed the refund claim u/s. 5 ibid by holding that since the provisions of Rule 14 ibid have not been complied with, the refund of Cenvat credit as claimed by the Appellant under Rule 5 ibid cannot be denied. It is settled legal position that in absence of any notice for recovery as provided by Rule 14 ibid the refund claimed by the assessee under Rule 5 cannot be denied. Now I will take the merits of the matter and it has already been held by this Tribunal in the matter of ACCELEYA KALE SOLUTIONS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, THANE [2018 (7) TMI 1217 - CESTAT MUMBAI] that in such cases the nexus between the input service used in export of service should not be insisted upon - also, the amended provisions of Rule 5 of the rules have also been clarified by the Tax Research Unit of Department of Revenue vide Circular dated 16.3.2012. It has been stated therein that the nexus between the input service used in export of service should not be insisted upon and the benefit of refund should be granted on the basis of ratio of export turnover to total turnover demonstrated by the assessee. The authorities below have erred in rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|