2012 (11) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the view that the appeal itself can be finally disposed of at this stage. Hence, after dismissing the stay application, we take up the appeal. 2. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 3. On a perusal of the records and hearing the learned Superintendent (AR), we note that the respondent had claimed refund of unutilised CENVAT credit of service tax amounting to Rs. 11,39,913/- paid on numerous input services which were said to have been used for export of their output service. This refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated. 14-3-2006. The original authority allowed refund only to the e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f. 11-5-2001. According to the appellant, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in view of the cited case law. The appellant has also contested the appellate Commissioner's finding of nexus between the input services and the output service. With reference to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (definition of input service), it is claimed that there exists no nexus between the input services and the output service (information technology software service) exported by the assessee. 5. We have carefully perused the relevant findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that a clear nexus was found between the output service and each of the input services and accordingly refund of the CENVAT Credit taken on the input servi....