TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very for Gym and supply of tangible goods have been held to be input services by various decisions, the appellant is entitled to refund of CENVAT credit on all these input services. Interest on delayed refund - HELD THAT:- Apex court in the case of UOI vs. Hambard L(Waqf) Laboratories [ 2016 (3) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT ], have held that the assessee is eligible for interest on refund amount sanctioned, in case, there is a delay beyond the stipulated period of three months as prescribed under the law - Hence, the appellant is entitled for the interest on the delayed sanction of the refund. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/20390-20398/2020 - Final Order No. 20076 - 20084/2021 - Dated:- 23-3-2021 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Aishwarya. G, CA For the Respondent : Mr. P. Rama Holla, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Appellant has filed these nine appeals against the two impugned orders dated 18.2.2020 and 19.2.2020 whereby the Commissioner (A) has partially rejected the refund claims of the appellant under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012 dated 18.6.2012. Since all the issues involved in all these n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t services. Hence, present appeals. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order denying refund is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the amended definition of input service and the Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. He further submitted that each of the input service on which refund has been rejected has been held to be input service by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Courts. He also submitted that the findings in the impugned order on the point of nexus are misconstrued and determination of eligibility of refund is not akin to determination of eligibility to input credit. He also submitted that both the authorities have grossly erred in rejecting the refund on input services on the ground that the absence of such input service will not adversely impact the quality and efficiency of the provision of the output service. Further, both the authorities have not appreciated the ambit and scope of revised definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He also submitted that after the clarification issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and after the Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012, the TRU vide letter D.O.F. No.334/1/2012-TRU dated 16.3.2012 has clarified the refund procedure and has done away with the nexus test. 5.3 The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the appellant is entitled for grant of interest on delayed processing of refund claim beyond the period of three months from making such an application and in this respect, he relied upon the decisions rendered in the following cases: Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI: 2011-TIOL-105-SC Xerox Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax Central Excise: 2019-TIOL-508-HC-Kerala M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2014-TIOL-1486-CESTAT-Ahmedabad UOI vs. M/s. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories: 2016-TIOL-21-SC-CX 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned orders and justified the rejection of refund on the basis of the Circular relied upon by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. He further submitted that in appeal No.ST/20397/2020 for the period January 2017 to March 2017, in respect of Business Support Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service, Recovery for Gym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led for grant of interest on delayed refund claim beyond the period of three months. It is pertinent to note that the apex court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) has held as under: 9 . It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the Court, then for the purpose of this Section the order made by such higher Appellate Authority or by the Court shall be deemed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
