9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) order is null and void since the same had already been decided by his earlier order. Refund claim - various input services - Air Travel Agent - Business Auxiliary Service - Courier Agency - Custom House Agent - Event Management Service - Management, Maintenance and Repair service - Manpower Recruitment Service - Transportation of Goods by road - period January 2012 to March 2012 - Held that:- All services other than Event Management Service are covered by the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004 even after amendment carried out on 1.4.2011. Consequently, the appellant will be eligible for such services and hence eligible for refund of the same under Rule 5 of the CCR - However, in respect of Event Management S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se cases is refund of unutilized cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant has exported services and availed cenvat credit on various input services for the same. Since the services were exported, the unutilized cenvat credit was sought to be refunded. Vide the impugned order, the rejection of such refund claims by the original authority were upheld. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present set of appeals have been filed by the appellant. 4.1 At the outset, Ld. Counsel Shri Rabeen Jayaram representing the appellant submits that the present impugned order relating to Appeal Nos.ST/41049-41069/2016 (except Appeal No.ST/41065/2016) does not survive as the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier decision vide OIA No. 89 to 110/2014 (M-ST) dt. 14.03.2014 held the issue in favour of the appellant. He therefore prayed that the same view may be taken in these appeals also. 5. The Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy appearing for the Revenue fairly concedes that Appeal Nos.ST/41049-41069/2016 (other than ST/41065/2016) are pertaining to portions of Commissioner (Appeals) order which are already disposed of and hence are to be considered as null and void. However, with reference to the period Jan 2012 to March 2012, he reiterated the findings of the authorities below and submitted that the appellant will not be eligible for such cenvat credit in view of the amendments carried out in the Cenvat Credit Rules with effect from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently, the appellant will be eligible for such services and hence eligible for refund of the same under Rule 5 of the CCR. However, in respect of Event Management Services, we fail to see the correlation of the same with the activities of the appellant and cannot be considered as an input service . Hence we uphold disallowance of the cenvat credit on such service Refund of same under Rule 5 of the CCR 2005 is also disallowed. 9. It has been submitted by the appellant that FIRCs for an amount of ₹ 49 lakhs, which could not be produced before the lower authorities during the earlier proceedings, are now available with the appellant and can be produced for verification. In view of the above submissions, we are of the view that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
