Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 866 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - denial on the ground that input services had no nexus with the output services exported - deficiencies in the documents - modification of refund claims under rule 5 of CCR - HELD THAT:- It is well settled position in law that refund claim filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules could not have been modified for the reason that certain Cenvat credits are inadmissible to the appellant, for which proper proceedings need to have been initiated under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Reference has been made in various decisions - reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. CROSS TAB MARKETING SERVICES P. LTD. VERSUS C.C.G.S.T., MUMBAI EAST [2021 (9) TMI 979 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has by the impugned order held the refund to be admissible, to the extent of CENVAT Credit held admissible by him subject to verification of the documents by the original authority I modify his order to this extent i.e. that entire credit as claimed by the Appellant for determining the refund amount is held admissible if not held admissible in proper proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the case of M/S BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTION PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI EAST [2021 (12) TMI 676 - CESTAT MUMBAI] it was held that The rule only provides that the admissible refund will be proportional to the ratio of export turnover of goods and services to the total turnover, during the period under consideration and the net Cenvat credit taken during that period. Indisputably, in the refund proceedings under Rule 5 ibid as amended, any such attempt to deny or to vary the credit availed during the period under consideration is not permissible. If the quantum of the Cenvat credit is to be varied or to be denied on the ground that certain services do not qualify as input services or on the ground of ‘no nexus’, then the same could have been done only by taking recourse to Rule 14 ibid. The impugned order denying the refund claims made in terms of Rule 5, for the reason that input services had no nexus with the output services exported or for the reason that the credit cannot be held admissible for the reasons of deficiencies in the documents against which the same is claimed cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed.
|