TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was held that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was substituted vide Notification No. 18/2012-CE (NT) dated 17.03.2012, with effect from 01.04.2012. The said substituted rule has prescribed the formula for claiming refund of service tax by the service provider. Under such amended rule in vogue, there is no requirement of satisfying the nexus between the input services and the output service provided by the service provider. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 89503 of 2018 - A/87029/2019 - Dated:- 1-10-2019 - HON BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Radan Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Dharmendra Singh, Authorized R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that shown in ST-3 Return for the period from October, 2015 to March, 2016 have been co-related and it was observed that during the claim period Cenvat Credit taken as per Cenvat Credit Register is same as the Cenvat Credit taken as per ST-3 Return. Hence, combined amount of ₹ 21,64,332/- for the period from October, 2015 to March, 2016 was considered for calculation of maximum refund as per Notification No.27/2012 CE (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who reversed the order by observing that the assessee was providing intermediary services and accordingly the location of the intermediar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue stands decided by the many decisions of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Barclay Global Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. Ors. V. Commissioner of Central Excise Service tax, Noida [2019-TIOL-1714-CESTAT-ALL] . It stands held in the said decision that as no objection was raised by the Revenue at the time of availing the credit, such objection cannot be raised at the time of deciding the refund claim in terms of provision of Rule 5. 5. The issue has also been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise, Mumbai [2018-TIOL- 2452-CESTAT-MUM]. Wherein it was observed, as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
