9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xable services, they have registered with jurisdictional Service Tax authorities by taking Service Tax Registration No. AAECD4290NSD001.The activities undertaken by the appellants include providing engineering design support, drafting, designing and professional engineering services. The appellants avail CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on input services used in provision of taxable output services. Since, the appellants are exporting 100% of their output service, they were unable to utilize the CENVAT credit taken in their books of account for payment of output service tax liability on exports. Therefore, the appellants have filed refund application along with supporting documents to the jurisdictional office on 14.12.2017 for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.37,81,402/-. (including Krishi Kalyan Cess) said to have been accumulated during the period from January, 2017 to March, 2017 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (herein after referred to as "the CCR of 2004"). The appellants have submitted that they had exported all their Output services i.e. "Consulting Engineering Service" without payment of Service Tax during the aforesaid period and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30. The said refund claim of the claimant has also been verified with respect to the applicability of the clause of unjust enrichment, as prescribed under the section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and found to be not applying in the instant case as the claim has been filed under the provisions of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rule, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 31. I find that the total refund claimed by the assessee is Rs 37,81,402 however the eligible refund amount worked out by the Department is reduced to Rs 32,66,207 (i.e. Rs 3781402 less Rs 5,15,195) as explained at Para 11 and 15 above. Out of the eligible amount of Rs 32,66,207 the amount found disallowable is Rs 4,04,858/- (Rupees Four Lakh Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight only) and the amount of refund that can be sanctioned works out to Rs 28,61,349 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty One Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Nine only) (i.e. Rs 32,66,207 less Rs4,04,858) 32. In view of the above, I pass following order: ORDER I. I sanction the claim of refund to the extent to Rs 28,61,349 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty One Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Nine Only) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the month of March, 2016.He further submitted that Rule 9 of the CCR of 2004 specifies that CENVAT credit is to be taken on the basis of invoices. The law does not provide that the CENVAT credit is to be availed/ utilized on the basis of ST-3 Returns. 4.2 Learned Advocate further emphasized that Rule 9(1) of CCR, 2004 unambiguously establishes that CENVAT credit can be availed basis the invoice of the service provider which the appellants had duly produced before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) containing the requisite details. He also submitted that there is no discussion let alone finding on this issue. In this regard, he placed reliance on the case of CC, Mumbai vs Toyo Engineering India Limited reported in 2006 (2011) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.), wherein the precedent that an adjudication order cannot traverse beyond the SCN, was established. 4.3 Learned Advocate also submitted that there is no discussion in the impugned order besides any finding on the issue of difference between ST-3 returns and refund claim filed by the appellants. Nonconsideration of submissions made by the appellants on this issue is blatant non-compliance of principles of natural justice and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the professional services (for an amount of Rs.22,265/-) and legal consultancy services (for an amount of Rs.22,531/-) for which they had submitted the documentary evidence of invoice and challans evidencing payment of service tax are permissible for taking CENVAT credit. However, in respect of CENVAT credit availed for the past period for which refund was claimed (for an amount of Rs.Rs.5,15,196/-) and for part of the CENVAT credit where the address mentioned in the invoices were not the registered address of the appellants (involving an amount of Rs.2,68,284/-), the CENVAT credit eligibility was denied by rejecting the claim of refund of Rs.7,83,480/-. Thus, the dispute that needs to be addressed by me in this appeal is limited to the above said issue. 8.1 In respect of the CENVAT credit for amount of Rs.5,15,196/- on the ground that such credit was not availed during the disputed quarter, but in subsequent period, the appellants pleaded that it cannot be the basis for denial of the same, as they relate to General Insurance where premium is calculated/determined later, and hence the appellants had claimed the refund of the same. Further, they stated that such an issue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In the case of Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. (supra), there are apt observations in this regard to say "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher Court. Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove. The order in the present case is as cryptic as it was in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh Negi (supra). Being a cryptic order and for the reasons recorded in that case by this Court which we also adopt, the impugned order in the present appeal should meet the same fate." 9. In respect of denial of CENV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
