9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of inputs and input services which were used in export of services. These refund claims were allowed partly and rejected partly by the original authority. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the first appellate authority, who, vide the impugned orders, partly allowed the appeals and partly rejected the same. Hence, these appeals. 3. Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that refund was sought to be denied to them mainly only on four grounds (i) that there was no nexus with the output services which they have exported, (ii) the input service credit was ab initio not available to them because it was excluded from the scope of input services as per Rule 2(l) of CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the credit is not admissible at all, if the appellant has wrongly availed the credit this does not entitle him to the refund of credit. As far as non production of documents is concerned, he would submit that the appellant had submitted some documents before the lower authority and was granted refund to that extent, but had failed to submit some more documents. Subsequently, at the first appellate stage, appellant submitted some more documents and were granted the refund to that extent by the first appellate authority. However, he had not produced some documents. Considering the assertion of Ld. CA that they are now in a position to submit the documents, the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, the lower authority denied the credit of Rs. 42,386/- on the ground of nexus with the output service and an amount of Rs. 21,72,572/- on the ground that documents were not produced or that the documents are not in the name of the appellant. 6. I have considered the submissions by Ld. CA on behalf of appellant. I find that denial of refund in all these cases is mainly on the ground that the appellant was not able to produce the necessary documents before the lower authorities. Ld. CA admits that they were not able to produce the documents but will 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. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004, the appellant is legally not entitled to the credit of CENVAT Credit and consequently the question of refund under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 does not arise. (b) Wherever the refund of credit is sought to be denied on the grounds of lack of nexus with the output service, without having denied credit taken, this cannot be a ground for denial of refund under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 as two different yardsticks cannot be applied for allowing credit and for giving refund of the same under Rule 5 of CCR 2004. (c) Wherever refund was denied because of the appellant's inability to produce the necessary documents, but which the appellant now claims to be able to produce, need to be examined and credit should be allowed to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
