TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly established that all the relevant invoices were submitted before the sanctioning authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals) - this issue needs to be verified and if at all required the assessee-appellant shall provide the invoices to the sanctioning authority - matter on remand. Refund claim - rejected on the ground that the assessee-appellant have debited an amount of ₹ 33,91,087/- but the same is not debited towards the sale of service in the domestic market - Held that: - The reversal of ₹ 33,91,087/- was made by the assessee-appellant against the excess CENVAT credit availed in the period which is prior to the relevant period for this refund. If this was the reversal of CENVAT credit of earlier period that to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006. Accordingly, they filed various refund claims before the adjudicating authority. After adjudication of the case the matter was taken up with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed majority amount of refund however, in some of the cases rejected refund claim on the ground that the appellant have not submitted relevant invoices and also in some cases nexus of input services with output services was not established. The Revenue filed 17 appeals and the appellant filed 03 appeals. 2. Shri Abhishek Rustogi, Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the assessee-appellant submits that refund was rejected only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th December 2015. Therefore these two appeals are liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable. 2.3 As regard other 15 appeals filed by the Revenue, he submits that in all the appeals the ground of Revenue is that in respect of some services there is no nexus between the input service and 'output services'. Therefore for this reason the refund was liable to be rejected. His submission is that the assessee-appellant was not issued any show-cause notice for denial of CENVAT credit therefore without any proposal for holding that certain services are not input service the refund claim cannot be rejected. 2.4 Alternatively he submitted that the assessee-appellant has provided IT services which was exported and all the services on whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexus with the output services and has wrongly allowed the refund. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 4.1 As regard the assessee-appellant's appeals No.ST/89165/13 and ST/89172/13 the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund on the ground of non-submission of invoices. However, we find that there is no such allegation in the show-cause notice but we are of the view that for processing any refund claim documents which are required for processing refund claim are indeed required and even there is no demand in the show-cause notice for such documents, it should be placed before the sanctioning authority. From the case records it is not clearly established that all the relevant invoices were submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Government's litigation Policy as per the Circular No. F.No.390/Misc.163/2010-JC dated 17th December 2015. 4.4 Regarding the other 15 appeals filed by the Revenue, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined in detail regarding the use of each and every service and come to the conclusion that these services have nexus with the output service and accordingly allowed the refund. As per the statement of learned C.A. the detail of services are as under:- 4.5 We observed from the above description of the services that all the services were used by the assessee-appellant for providing the output services which have been exported. Moreover since the sanctioning authority in the show-cause notice did not raise the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
