Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 566 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground that the input services against which the Respondent has filed the refund claim cannot be considered as ‘input services’ for the ‘output services’ rendered by them, as the said input services were not directly or indirectly related to the output services - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the definition of 'input services' and given a very categorical finding regarding admissibility of the credit of 'input services' used in providing the output services by the Respondent - it is found that the Respondent has availed Cenvat credit on the input services used by them in providing the output services. The Department has not raised any objection at the time of availing and utilizing the credit - when no objection was raised at the time of availing and utilizing the credit, the objection regarding the eligibility of credit cannot be raised at the time of filing of the refund claim, to deny the refund claim. Prior to 1.4.2011 the 'input service' definition in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was very wide as it was an inclusive definition and covered the expression “activities relating to business”. This covers all such 'input services' used by the Respondent in providing their output services. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund. The impugned order has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent - Appeal filed by appellant is rejected.
|