TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover, the establishing the nexus between the input and output service cannot be insisted upon for consideration of the refund application. Issue also stands decided in the case of PMI ORGANISATION CENTRE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI EAST [ 2022 (3) TMI 192 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] where it was held that The reasons assigned by the authorities below in this case for denial of the refund benefit to the applicant shall not stand for judicial scrutiny inasmuch as other than the allegation of non-establishment of nexus, the department had never questioned nor pointed out any discrepancy, alleging that the ingredients mentioned in Rule 5 ibid have not been complied with by the appellant. Hence, ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97,615 - 97,615 R/138/PK/201 8-19 dated 25.02.2019 PVNS/113- 114/Appeals Thane/TH/201 9-20 dated 17.09.2019 2.2 The third refund claim has been rejected by the original authority against which the appellant preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeals have been disposed of by the impugned order. Aggrieved appellant has filed these appeals. 3.1 I have heard Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate, for the appellant and Shri S.B.P. Sinha, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 4.1 For rejecting the refund claims, adjudicating authority has observed as follows:- 6. I have gone through the refund claim filed by the claimant on 8.8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. As regards the entitlement of refund amounting to Rs.97,615/- as per claimant's letter dated 15.01.2019, it is observed that the Commissioner(Appeals) have vide his Order in Appeal dated 28.3.2018 issued specific direction to this refund sanctioning authority to ascertain the reasons for the adjudicating authority rejecting a total refund of Rs.67,15,811/- when the refund claim filed by the claimant for the period July 2012 to September 2012 itself amounted to only Rs.42,74,284/- . Thus, the refund entitlement has to be ascertained from the invoices submitted along with the original claim. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also specifically directed that the claimant will submit all the documents before the fresh refund sanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Adjudicating Authority on this count. 12.1 Regarding the Second question the contention of appellant is that as per Commissioner (Appeals) order No.PVNS/341- 342/Appeals Thane/TH/2017-18/3054 held that there is no procedural lapse in the refund application filed by Appellant and therefore refund claim shall be allowed. In this connection. I find that in the Appeal order at para 12.2 the Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned that the category of service has not been mentioned in the impugned order against the invoices not produced by the appellant and they have also not given their contention on the services in their grounds of appeal while submitting the invoices. Hence, in the absence of said details, the nature of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, the part amount, even though found to be refundable in principle, cannot be sanctioned until other documentary evidences are supplied. So, I find no infirmity in the conclusion of Adjudicating Authority on this count. 4.3 The basic issue is that Revenue seeks to modify the refund claims filed by the appellant without initiating any proceedings by way of issuance of show cause notice under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue is squarely covered by the following decisions:- Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (4) TMI 482 CESTAT Mumbai] PMI Organisation Centre Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (3) TMI 192 CESTAT Mumbai] FDC Ltd. [2018 (10) TMI 1561 CESTAT Mumbai] Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (8) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
