2017 (12) TMI 836 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - various input services - denial on the ground that there is no nexus with the output service of the appellant i.e., the Information Technology Software Service - Held that: - all the services have been held to be eligible input services as per the decisions cited by the appellant - CENVAT credit allowed.

Procedural errors in documentation CENVAT credit stand disallowed for the reason that the appellant has not submitted copies of the relevant documents such as invoices at the time of claiming refunds - Held that: - learned consultant asserts that the appellant is in a possession of such documents and in a position to submit the same to make good the deficiency in the documentation - matter remanded to the original adjudicating for a de novo decision on this subject after considering the documents submitted by the appellant.

Export Turnover Ratio and Apparent error and double disallowance - whether the maximum refund allowable is to be calculated on the basis of gross or net CENVAT credit which has been taken by the appellant? - Held that: - we set aside the findings of the lower authorities on the subject matter of export turnover ratio and remand the issue back to the original authority for redetermination of the same and also re-determine such refund amounts keeping in view the amended definition of exports turnover services from 1.4.2012.

Credit availed in particular quarter and payment made in next quarter - Held that: - even though the payment was not made by the appellant for the services within the quarter for which the refund was claimed, the same has been made in the subsequent quarter. If that is so, then it becomes only a procedural lapse for which the substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied to the appellant - the original authority is directed to verify the fact of payment for such services in subsequent quarter and then allow the refund.

Appeal allowed by way of remand.