TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utput service. Refund has been rejected on the ground of non-production of documents - HELD THAT:- Case remanded back to the original authority who will examine the documents which may be produced by the appellants in support of their refund claims. Denial of refund on the basis of debit notes - HELD THAT:- As far as denial of refund on the basis of debit notes in which the amount paid and services received are not clear. In view of the decisions, the debit note is a valid document for claiming CENVAT credit under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Denial of refund on other procedural irregularities viz., that invoices does not contain address of the appellant - HELD THAT:- Denial of refund on other procedural irregularities viz., that invoices does not contain address of the appellant is also not sustainable in law because the appellant is engaged in export of service and these services are essential for rendering output service. The matter is remanded back to the original authority for verification of the documents, invoices as well as the details in the debit notes; and thereafter, pass a fresh order and determine the eligible refund claim of the appellant - ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consulting Engineering, Business Auxiliary Services, Maintenance and Repair Services, Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service and Management Consultant Services. Appellant had filed refund claims as listed in the table above seeking refund of unutilized CENVAT credit paid on input services used for providing the Consulting Engineering Services exported during the impugned period under Notification No.5/2006-CE dated 14.3.2006. Thereafter, show-cause notices were issued to the appellant seeking rejection of the claims on various discrepancy/shortcomings. After considering the reply filed by the appellant, the original authority rejected the refund claims partially. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who also partially allowed the appeals of the appellant. Hence, these present appeals. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the definition of Input Service and also binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Business Support Services Authorized Service Station s Services Information Technology Software Services Courier Services 5.1 Learned counsel submitted that the refunds were rejected on certain services on the ground that there is no direct nexus between the input services which are used for providing taxable output service which is exported, but the said services have been held to be input services by various decisions of the Tribunal. For each service, she has given the decisions rendered by the Tribunal holding that service as an input service on the ground that they are essential for rendering output service. Service Relied upon decisions Rent-a-cab Scheme Operator s Service CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd.: 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.) CCE, Bangalore vs. Bell Ceramics: 2012 (25) STR 428 (Kar.) Deloittee Support Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad-IV: 2018 (5) GS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arities, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund on the basis that debit notes are not the proper document for claiming CENVAT credit. In this regard, she submitted that it is a settled position that credit availed on the basis of debit notes must be allowed. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: CCE, Jaipur-I vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd.: 2018 (12) GSTL 123 (Raj.) Unicure India Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida: 2017 (3) GSTL 418 (Tri.-All. Ad-manum Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore: 2017 (346) ELT 142 (Tri.-Del.) 5.5 She also submitted that refund cannot be denied on the ground that there is no address of the assessee on certain invoices. For this, she relied upon the following decisions: GE India Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Hyderabad-II: 2016 (44) STR 693 (Tri.-Hyd.) Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organization Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal: 2017 (4) GSTL 100 (Tri.-Del.) 5.6 She further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) while rejecting refund claim on lack of nexus has observed that the said service does not qualify as an essential input service, the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendering output service. 7.1 Further, I find that refund has been rejected on the ground of non-production of documents as cited supra. For this, I remand back the case to the original authority who will examine the documents which may be produced by the appellants in support of their refund claims. As far as denial of refund on the basis of debit notes in which the amount paid and services received are not clear. In view of the decisions cited supra, I hold that debit note is a valid document for claiming CENVAT credit under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 7.2 Further, denial of refund on other procedural irregularities viz., that invoices does not contain address of the appellant is also not sustainable in law because the appellant is engaged in export of service and these services are essential for rendering output service. 8. In view of my discussions above, the matter is remanded to the original authority for verification of the documents, invoices as well as the details in the debit notes; and thereafter, pass a fresh order and determine the eligible refund claim of the appellant. (Order was pronounced in Open Court on 22/11/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
