TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be recovered from the appellant, by issuing of an appropriate show cause notice. As far as the cases where credit was taken when the specific service clearly excluded from Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 is concerned, it is true that the credit first be denied. However, where the appellant is not entitled to the credit in the first place, it is inconceivable to refund the same. Denial on the ground that the invoices were not in the name of the appellant - Held that:- What is relevant is whether the appellant had received those services in production of their output services, even if there is some error/omission in the name and address in the invoices. As long as the input services/inputs were actually used by the appellant in production of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initio not available to them because it was excluded from the scope of input services as per Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 and (iii) that they failed to submit necessary documents at the time of claiming of refund and (iv) that the documents were not in their name. As far as the first issue is concerned, it is his contention that once credit has been allowed, they are entitled to refund of the same and it cannot be denied on the ground that there was no nexus with the output services. With respect to the second issue, he submits that the credit was sought to be denied on the ground that works contract service was excluded from Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004; he asserts that the exclusion was related to construction of buildings and they had hired the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to submit the documents, the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents and allowing credit to that extent they are able to substantiate their claims. 5. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records and I find as follows: (a) Appeal No. ST/30064/2018: In this case, the appellant claimed refund of ₹ 2,33,33,967/-, of which the lower authority sanctioned an amount of ₹ 2,22,21,689/- and rejected an amount of ₹ 11,12,278/- on the ground of lack of nexus with the output service and non production of documents. The first appellate authority in the impugned order allowed their appeal except that to the extent of ₹ 10,15,812/- on the ground as l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be able to do so now. These documents, in my opinion, when submitted by the appellant, need to be considered by the adjudicating authority to decide the admissibility of refund on this count. Insofar as the allegation that there is no nexus between the input service and the output service is concerned, once the credit of CENVAT is allowed, refund of the same cannot be denied. In fact when the CENVAT credit is wrongly availed, the same needs to be recovered from the appellant, by issuing of an appropriate show cause notice. As far as the cases where credit was taken when the specific service clearly excluded from Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 is concerned, it is true that the credit first be denied. However, where the appellant is not entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
