TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to unregistered premises of appellant - input services do not have nexus with the output services. Held that:- I am convinced of the arguments and explanation put forward by the appellant about each service and their necessity / nexus with the output services. - The Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd., UP Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2016 (2) TMI 902 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant Shri Rajesh Jacob, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent ORDER The appellant challenges the impugned order which disallowed the refund of credit on input services. 2. The appellant is engaged in providing consulting engineer services and Information Technology Services which are exported to entities located outside India. It is a 100% EOU and is registered with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sultant on behalf of the appellant submitted the details of disallowance as per the following table. In addition, he submitted that an amount of ₹ 387/- is not contested by the appellant in the present appeal. So the disputed amount in this appeal is limited to ₹ 4,82,146/-, which is detailed below:- Description Amount disallowed (Rs.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pretation of inputs and not input service. The view laid in Maruthi Suzuki has been doubted and referred to Larger Bench. The Larger Bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd., UP Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2016-TIOL-20-SC-CX-LB] answered the reference stating that the word include does not have a restrictive meaning. It is submitted that the authorities below have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. The two reasons on which the refund has been rejected have been explained by Shri Abhishek Rastogi appearing for the appellant. I am convinced by the arguments put forward on behalf of the appellant. I find that the rejection of refund is not just or proper. The appellant is eligible for refund of the amounts shown in the table. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
