TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax paid by such service provider - When all the conditions of the Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 are satisfied, there appears to be no scope for disallowing CENVAT credit on selected services and holding its refund ineligible - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/30223/2016, ST/30024/2017, ST/30025/2017 - Final Order No. 30668/2017, 30670/2017, 30671/2017 - Dated:- 29-5-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Mr. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant Shri Shakeel Baba, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER These applications are filed for condonation of delay in filing supplementary orders before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the submissions made by both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claims on the ground that the services cannot be considered as input services as per the definition of Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. On an appeal filed by assessee, the first appellate authority set aside the impugned order and allowed appeals. 6. Ld. DR submits that the Cenvat Credit availed by appellant has no nexus to the export of services but confirms that services were exported. On this, the revenue is contesting the impugned order. 7. Ld. CA submits that identical issue has been decided by Tribunal in various matters and there is an error in the findings of first appellate authority. He also draws my attention to the recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of ARM Embedded technologies Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned services are eligible input services and thus eligible for refund under Rule 5 of CCR. Sr. No. Input service Relevant Case Laws 1. Air Travel Agent's Service (i) Acet Labs[2011-TIOL-1296-Cestat-Bang) (ii) Dr. Reddy's Lab V. CCE, Hyderabad [2010 (19)S.T.R 71 (Tri.-Bang.) (iii) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. [2013 (31)S.T.R 38 Tri.-Bang.) 2. Business Support Service (other than employee consumption related service) (i)Mavenir Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2012(27)S.T.R 510 (Tri.-Bang)] (ii) Yokogawa IS Technologies India P Ltd. 2011(24)S.T.R. 465 (Tri.-Bang) (iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action is being proposed in terms of Rule 14 of the CCR. In the instant case, no such proposal was made either in the Show Cause Notice or at the time of personal hearing. Therefore, refunds cannot be denied when all the conditions of the relevant notification is fulfilled. The appellants, in the present case, have not contested for the refund of service tax credit on the services viz; Rent-A-Cab Service, Event Management Service and Works Contract Service and, therefore, the same are not taken up for any further discussion. I also find that the first appellate authority has addressed the limitation issue in para 14 which is also reproduced: In terms of Para 3 (b) of the impugned notification, the refund application in the Form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
