TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III [ 2022 (3) TMI 271 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , to substantiate the views taken by CESTAT, where it was held that Without denying the CENVAT Credit taken/ availed by the appellant in their book of accounts during the relevant period (quarter) by way of initiating proceedings against the appellant in terms of Rule 14, revenue could not have altered the quantum of Net CENVAT Credit availed during the said quarter, and deny the encashment of that amount of the CENVAT Credit which is due as per the Rule 5. It is now well settled principle of law that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other manner. There ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dertaken without payment of Service Tax. In the process it had accumulated CENVAT Credit on Service Tax liability discharged under reverse charge mechanism on the services procured from outside India and under normal procedure for the services availed within India. Against the accumulated CENVAT Credits, it had filed refund applications for the period from April 2012 to December 2012, January 2014 to March 2014, April 2014 to June 2014 and January 2016 to March 2016. Vide Order-in-Originals dated 29.09.2017, 21.09.2015, 28.10.2015 and 15.01.2018, those refund claims were rejected on the ground that input services had no nexus with output services, registered office address not appearing in ST-2, storage was beyond the place of removal, invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCGST CE reported in 2023 (5) TMI 865 CESTAT MUMBAI, M/s Keva Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2022 (3) TMI 271 CESTAT MUMBAI, LRN Technology And Content Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), CGST CE reported in 2020 (1) TMI 1335 - CESTAT MUMBAI, M/s. BNP Paribas India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCGST CE reported in 2023 (5) TMI 439 CESTAT, M/s. Capital India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT reported in 2023 (4) TMI 712 CESTAT MUMBAI and many others that CENVAT Credit cannot be held to be inadmissible in a refund proceeding in the absence of any proceeding initiated under Rule, 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and as no recovery proceeding was initiated for the alleged erroneous taking of credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod. Para 6 and 7 of the said order are reproduced hereunder for better clarity: 6. In the case in hand, the department has not disputed the fact regarding exportation of the output service by the appellant. Since, the input services were used in or in relation to provision of output service exported by the appellant, the benefit of refund provided under Rule 5 ibid should be available to it. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellant did not follow the procedures laid down under Rule 5 read with the notification issued there under. The said Rule does not provide any stipulation or embargo that one-to-one co-relation or nexus has to be established between the input and exported output services. Considering the statutory provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 4 of the said Rules, then the same could have been denied by following the procedure as laid down in Rule 14. The so availed erroneous credit cannot be the subject matter of proceedings of Refund in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In these cases even if the refund claim is denied on the ground as stated by the impugned order then the same will be credited back to the CENVAT Account of the appellants and if possible appellant can utilize the same for payment of goods/ services cleared by them subsequently. Admittedly and undisputedly no proceedings for denial of any CENVAT Credit as claimed by the appellants, for encashment of which they have filed these refund claims have been initiated by the revenue. 4.8 Withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,353/- and order for refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit of the balance amount involved in this appeal, except for Rs. 1,353/-. (Underlined to emphasize) 6. Having gone through the facts of the case and relevant portion of the above referred judgments, we have got no hesitation to hold that credit as sought by the Appellant is admissible to it except for an amount of Rs.23,418/- and Rs.38,604/- in respect of which invoices were not submitted and/or Service Tax numbers were not available on the bills, in which respect also Appellant has abandoned its claim in writing through a memo filed before this Tribunal. Therefore, in carrying forward judicial precedent set by this Tribunal, the following order is passed. THE ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
