2018 (12) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gaged in rendering services of IT software and Business Auxiliary Service which are exported by the appellant company to its client located outside India. It had availed cenvat credit on input services in respect of the above referred services availed by it but its refund application filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 was rejected partly on tax paid on those services on the ground that those above referred were covered under the exclusion clause. Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order-in-original before the Commissioner (Appeals) and preferred this appeal before this Tribunal seeking above referred relief. 3. In the memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of appeal, the ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri Bharat R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f cenvat credit and sought no interference in the order by this Tribunal. 5. Heard from both sides and perused the case records. It is observed that before rejection of claim of the appellant that came through order-in-original, appellant was not noticed to justify the linkage between input and output service for which out of the total claim of Rs. 2,34,02,251/- appellant was denied refund of Rs. 41,87,020/- pertaining to those services and except a noting in the order-in-original at para 6 to which Table 3 is annexed that such services were inadmissible as per provision of Rule 2(I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, nothing can be inferred from the Orderin- Appeal as to why those are inadmissible credits. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng by the exclusion clause of Cenvat Credit Rules it can be said that there is no service referred in those clauses that would be considered as absolute since each of those category of services are qualified one, dependant on personal use, consumption of employees, etc. In the premise, it is a fit case which is required to be re-adjudicated upon with reference to production of relevant documents that would establish the linkage between input and output service and the same would ensure natural justice to the appellant also. Hence the order - 6. The Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in terms of above obser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X