TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the services on which credit was taken constituted input services having nexus with the exported output services so as to entitle the respondent to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit; and (ii) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an impermissible order of remand.
Issue (i): whether the services on which credit was taken constituted input services having nexus with the exported output services so as to entitle the respondent to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit.
Analysis: The findings recorded below showed that bandwidth services, IT enabled services, security agency services, outdoor catering service and renting of immovable property service were used in the functioning of the unit and were directly connected with the output services exported by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) had given categorical reasons on nexus and had also treated non-registration under a particular category as no bar to refund. On the facts, the services were held to be input services for the exported output services.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent and against the department.
Issue (ii): whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an impermissible order of remand.
Analysis: The direction to the original authority was only to quantify the admissible refund after verification of the amount claimed and the prescribed certificate. The merits had already been decided and the original authority was not called upon to re-adjudicate them. The order was therefore not treated as a true remand.
Conclusion: The objection based on want of power of remand was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed and the refund entitlement as found by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate authority has conclusively found nexus between the claimed input services and the exported output services, a limited direction for quantification of refund does not amount to an impermissible remand.
TaxTMI 
