2014 (6) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... after dismissing the stay application, we take up the appeal of the department to be heard and disposed of with the assessee's Appeal No. ST/2384/2010 which is directed against another part of the Appellate Commissioner's order. 2. The assessee had claimed refund, under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, of certain amounts of unutilized Cenvat credit on 'input services' which were claimed to have been used in relation to export of output service. The original authority rejected the claim of refund to the extent of Rs. 1,24,27,580/- on the ground that no nexus was established between the input services and the output service. It sanctioned refund of Rs. 85,02,011/-. Aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim to the tune of Rs. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xus issue and sent the case back to the original authority for the limited purpose of re-quantification of the amount for refund in terms of the Board's circular ibid. It was not a remand and hence the Revenue's challenge fails. Their appeal stands dismissed. 5. One part of the challenge set up by the assessee is against the denial of refund on the ground of absence of registration with the department. The learned counsel for the assessee has claimed support, in this connection, from the Hon'ble High Court's judgment dated 23-9-2011 in Central Excise Appeal No. 6/2011 (M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore) [2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.)]. Para 7 of the Hon'ble High Court's order conta....