2011 (11) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und claim filed by the assessee under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 claiming refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services which were claimed to have been utilized for export of output services. Aggrieved, the assessee, in each case, preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority passed an order in each case after examining the question whether the lower authority was right in rejecting the refund claim for want of nexus between input service and output service. The appellate authority recorded a finding to the effect that the input services were essential for rendering of output services which were exported. However, in each case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under: "However, Gui....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s reiterated the grounds of these appeals and has also relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of MIL India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise, Noida [2007 (210) E.L.T. 188 (S.C.)], and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Orient Craft Ltd. [2011 (21) S.T.R. 302 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein it was held that, under sub-section (5) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, no remand order could be passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. There is no representation for the respondent in appeals No. ST/1498 & 1499/2011. They have sought adjournment of hearing. The learned Counsel and the learned Consultant for the respondents in appeals No. ST/1500/2011 and ST/1501/2011 respectively have ....