TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexus with the output service - The Board circular also clarifies the same. The rejection of refund claim is without any basis and unjustified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. ST/42370 & 42371/2018 - Final Order Nos. 40249-40250/2019 - Dated:- 7-2-2019 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Harish Bindhumadhavan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants, who were formerly known as Visual Graphics Computing services India Pvt. Ltd., filed refund claims for the period April to June 2016 and July to September 2016. After due process of law, the original authority denied the credit as well as the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any nexus between the input services and the output services. It is also opined by the authorities below that the services do not contribute or add value to the output services provided by the appellant. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in K Line Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2017-TIOL-2406-CESTAT-MUM to argue that the department cannot reject the refund claim by stating that the credit is not eligible. In fact, in the present case, the department had not issued any show cause notice alleging that the credit is not eligible to the appellant. In such case, as per Rule 5, the department has to process the refund claim and cannot go into the admissibility of the credit. He also relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by issuing show cause notice that the appellant is not eligible for credit, they cannot go into the admissibility of the credit during the process of refund claim. Further, as per amended provisions of Rule 5, it is not necessary to establish the nexus with the output service. The Board circular clarifies the same. The Tribunal in the case of Kline Ship Management (India) P. Ltd. (supra) has made the following observations:- Rule 14. Recovery of CENVAT Credit wrongly taken or erroneously refunded.- Where the CENVAT credit has been taken wrongly but not utilised, the same shall be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of output service, as the case may be, and the provisions of section 11A of the Excise Act or section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf. It is seen that for examining the admissibility of credit a separate procedure have been provided under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It is not open to Revenue to examine the admissibility of Cenvat Credit while adjudicating the admissibility of refund under Rule 5 read with Notification issued there under . In the appellant s own case also, the said issue has been held in favour of them. 7. Following the same as well as appreciating the facts, I am of the view that the rejection of refund claim is without any basis and unjustified. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim on these services is set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
