9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR) for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] The appellant filed refund claim for the quarter July 2010 to September 2010 on 25.07.2011 for an amount of Rs. 29,12,096/- in respect of service tax paid on various input services in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. A show cause notice was issued proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m is time barred. He submitted that the adjudicating authority vide order dated 31.08.2010 had appropriated an amount of Rs. 4,03,800/- against the arrears of demand/ liability on the part of the appellant. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant is not challenging the said appropriation in this appeal. The details of input services and rejection of claim as put forward by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The authorities below have computed the period from the date of the invoice, instead of computing from the date of receipt of payment/foreign exchange. He submitted that when computed from the date of receiving the foreign exchange, the refund claim is within the prescribed time limit. 4. Refuting the above contentions Ld. AR Sh. Nagraj Naik submitted that credit has been rejected for the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment the co-ordinate bench of the Bombay Tribunal in the case of M/s Reliance Industries Ltd., [2016-TIOL-2392-CESTAT-Mum] has held the above services to be eligible for credit even post 01.04.2011. In view thereof, I hold that the rejection of refund claim on the ground that input services do not have nexus with the output services is against legal principles. 6. The next issue to be addressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of refund is against law. 7. From the foregoing discussions I hold that the appellant is eligible for refund and rejection of the same is unjustified. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the claim of Rs. 15,53,977/- is unsustainable. The impugned order to this extent is modified and the appeal is allowed on above terms with consequential reliefs, if any. ( Pronounced & dictated in open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
