Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (2) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed that the manufacturer or the service provider has to claim the refund as per the formula prescribed therein. Considering such amendment of Rule 5, the Tax Research Unit of Department of Revenue vide circular dated 16/03/2012 has clarified that the new scheme under Rule 5 does not require the kind of correlation that is needed at present between exports and input services used in such exports. Since the amended rule w.e.f. 01.04.2012 does not provide for establishment of nexus between the input and the output services and the benefit of refund is to be extended only on compliance of the formula prescribed therein, the denial of refund benefit on the ground of non-establishment of nexus cannot be sustained. Tribunal in the case of M/S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the disputed period, the appellant had filed refund applications under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that the entire output services were exported by the appellant and there was no scope for utilisation of the cenvat credit taken by the appellant for providing such services within the country on payment of service tax. The refund applications filed by the appellant were considered favourably by the original authority as well as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) partially and denied the benefit of refund in case of some of the input services on the ground that there were no nexus between such disputed input services and the output service exported by the appellant and that the disputed services are not conforming t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submits that the appellant had not claimed the refund benefit twice and to such extent, he submits that the appellant has adequate records to demonstrate that on the basis of the invoices, the refund benefit has been claimed only once and not twice. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since the disputed services have not been used for the intended purpose or conforming to the definition of input service , the benefit of refund provided under Rule 5 ibid should not be available to the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules was substituted by Notification No.18/2012-C.E.(N.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) ibid and the invoices were not submitted by the appellant, establishing the fact that the refund benefit should be granted to it. So far as establishing the nexus between input and the output service is concerned, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd (supra) by relying upon the letter dated 16.03.2012 of TRU has held that under Rule 5 ibid, refund of input service credit is permissible on compliance of the formula prescribed therein and not otherwise. The relevant paragraphs in the said order are extracted herein below: 3. Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was substituted vide Notification No. 18/2012-CE (NT) dated 17.03.2012, with effect from Appeal No. ST/88190,88215, 88216 88217/2018 4 01.04.20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8. In view of the above settled position of law, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, in so far as it uphold the adjudication order on the ground of nexus between the input and the output services. Accordingly, the appeals to such extent is allowed in favour of the appellant. 7. In view of above, the impugned order, insofar as it has denied the refund benefit on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between the input and output services, is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. 8. With regard to the other ground assigned for rejection of refund benefit i.e., taking of credit twice on the same invoice, I am of the view that such aspect cannot be verified at this juncture, for the reason .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates