9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Hon'ble P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Rahul Binani, CA for the appellant Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER PER: MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S 1. The facts of the case are that the appellants are a 100% EOU registered for providing "Information Technology Software Service (ITSS)" in the nature of information technology software service, Consulting E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri Rahul Binani appeared and argued the matter. He submit that the main reason for rejecting the refund was that the appellant has not established the nexus of the input services with the output services provided. He submitted that the period involved is prior to 01.04.2011 and all these services were used by the appellant for providing the output service. The second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the issue of nexus of the input services and output services, he relied on the decision of M/s Reliance Industries Limited [2016-TIOL-2392-CESTAT-MUM)]. 3. Ld. AR Shri N. Bhanu Kiran appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the department. He reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He stressed that the appellant has availed credit on ITSS which are not eligible as these services wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or output services. The appellant has provided details of various services that were used during the relevant period for providing output services. Major part of the refund is for the period prior 01.04.2011 and a small amount of refund is for period after 01.04.2011. It is submitted by appellant that they have not availed credit on services excluded from the definition of 'input services' after 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the above, we are of the considered opinion that rejection of refund is unsustainable. The impugned order to the extent of rejection of refund claims is set aside. 7. Appeal No. ST/21750/2014 is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Appeal Nos. ST/26087/2013, ST/27168/2013 and ST/28025/2013 are dismissed as withdrawn as submitted by Ld. Consultant for the appellant. (Dictated and pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
