9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER Per S. S. Garg The appellants have filed two appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 16.7.2013 vide which the Commissioner (A) has partially allowed the appeals of the appellant by holding that the appellants are eligible for refund of unutilised service tax credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 in respect of clearing and forwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilised CENVAT credit towards exports during the quarter July 2010 to September 2010. The adjudicating authority have rejected the claim partially to the tune of Rs. 7,14,931/- alleged that seven input services on which CENVAT was taken are not directly used in the manufacture of final product or for providing output services, not received in the premises of the appellant and there is no nexus bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice and manpower recruitment and supply services are concerned, the refund has been denied only on the ground that the said services have been availed at plot No.1 which has a different registration and secondly the input services viz., business support service, the refund has been rejected only on the ground that the documents are not in conformity with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that appellants have taken centralised registration covering both the premises i.e. Plot No.1 and 2 and consequently the appellant is entitled to claim refund in respect of services received in Plot No.2 as well. In support of his submission, the learned counsel submitted that this issue has already been decided in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal in the Final Order No.22070/2014 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said services were used in or in relation to the business. With regard to other services, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of input services by relying upon the ratio of the decision cited supra in the appellant s own case. Therefore, I allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned orders but with regard to quantification of the refund in relation to business support service, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
