9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 27 of 2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 in respect of Cenvat Credit availed on Banking and Financial Services and Insurance Services used for export of finished goods i.e. Gold Jewellery. In all the appeals common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals are taken up together for disposal. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim ordered by the adjudicating authority on the following grounds: i) Refund is governed by Notification No. 41/2007-ST hence, the condition of the Notification was not fulfilled such as time limit prescribed therein. ii) The documents in respect of insurance service are not in the name and address of the appellant but in the name and address of Mumbai Office. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, issue of nexus of the input service with output service cannot be made a ground for rejection of refund claim. Had the department of the view that the credit is not admissible, a separate show cause notice could have been issued for proposing the denial of the cenvat credit which was not done so far, therefore, at the stage of refund, admissibility of the Cenvat credit cannot be questioned as held by this CESTAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Mumbai 2018 (364) ELT 159 (Tri.-Mum.). He submits that refund is correctly admissible to them even if the invoices are in the name of Mumbai office, in view of the following judgment: * Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organisation Ltd vs CCE 2017 (4) GSTL 100 (T) * ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices were used in relation with the goods manufactured and exported from their registered office at Ahmedabad. 2.4 Similarly in respect of the Banking/ Financial Services also, the credit was taken only to the extent of Gold which was used in the manufacture of jewellery items which were exported from Ahmedabad office. 2.5 He without prejudice further submits that the impugned services were used in relation to manufacture of finished goods which were exported and therefore, it is irrelevant whether service pertains to Ahmedabad Unit or Dholera Unit. He submits that in view of above submission, the order passed by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect and illegal on facts as well as legal points, therefore, the same deserves to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant Ahmedabad Factory. It is the submission of the appellant that they have taken credit only to the extent it is related to Ahmedabad Factory, therefore, even if the document is bearing the name and address of the Mumbai office, only on this ground, refund cannot be rejected since service is attributed to the appellant's factory. Therefore, on this ground also, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in denying the refund. This issue is settled in the judgement cited by the appellant in their submission i.e. Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organisation Ltd vs CCE 2017 (4) GSTL 100 (T), Unicure India Ltd. Vs CCE 2017 (3) GSTL 418 (T) and CCE vs Chamundi Textile (Silk Mills) Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 531 (T). 8. As regard the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
