TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Business Auxiliary Services , Cab Operators Services , Sponsorship Services , etc. This being the ground for refusal, it is not to understood as to why the question of re-assessment is to come into play when such refusal is permissible well under Rule, 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. If particulars of description of goods or taxable service is not properly reflected in the duty paying document and that to the satisfaction of the Dy. Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise about its receipt and accounting for, then the discretion lies with the refund sanctioning Authority namely the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to allow the CENVAT Credit or not and such discretion having been exercised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority allowed refund of ₹3,73,48,820/- vide Order-in- Original dated 26.03.2018 and denied refund of ₹9,47,018/- including the above referred amount of ₹8,75,340/- on which denial was made as payment proof of Service Tax paid on legal services was not substantiated with documents. Legality of this denial is assailed by Appellant before this Forum while it has not challenged the remaining denial amount of ₹71,678/- that was made on account of unavailability of invoices. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Mahesh Raichandani in submitting case laws nomenclature of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (S.C.), Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. 69 of the appeal memo to justify that adjustment of excess amount paid earlier as Service Tax was shown as nil for the relevant period in the Service Tax Returns filed by the Appellant and, therefore, he sought no interference by this Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner in rejecting the refund. 5. I have gone through the case record and noticed that learned Commissioner had given his detail analysis on rejection of refund on legal services under para 9 sub-Clause (ii) of his order, it reads: Further, in respect of Sr. No. 278 to 308 of their partly consumed services CENVAT Credit statement, this office has called for copy of challan evidencing payment of Service Tax and Swachcha Bharat Cess (SBC). All these invoices are rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to them and liable for rejection. On going through the above findings it is very clear that on account of legal services availed as input services, no invoices were raised showing the services as legal services and on the other hand copy of G.A.R.-7 Challan evidencing payment of Service Tax clearly indicates that the said payments were made under Business Auxiliary Services , Cab Operators Services , Sponsorship Services , etc. This being the ground for refusal, it is not to understood us to why the question of re-assessment is to come into play when such refusal is permissible well under Rule, 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 concerning description contained in the duty paying document proviso to Rule 9(2) reads as follows: Provided t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
