TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,889 1,43,530 41,459 2. Civil Construction Service 23,153 6,92,264 49,857 (refund allowed on this count) 3. Interior Decorator Service 1,12,673 92,978 - 2,46,523 4. Storage & Warehousing Service 15,794 2,589 - 4,587 5. Event Management Service 8,425 - - - 6. Works Contract Service 16,57,640 15,65,539 98,370 35,75,201 7. Cable Operator Service 5,992 - - 510 Total (Rs. 85,15,270/-) 19,04,974 24,50,259 2,91,757 38,68,280 2. brief facts are that the appellant M/s J.P. Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. provide banking and other financial services, Business Auxiliary Services, Business Support Services and Management, Maintenance or Repair Service. Almost the entire services are exported and this is the reason service tax paid on input services was accumulated and could not be utilized by the appellant. Consequently being eligible, the appellant applied for refund of the input service tax credit, which remained unutilised, under the scheme of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to conclusively prove their point. Therefore, I find that the decisions of the adjudicating authority is just and legal. 7. Thus, the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the respondent is correct, and legal. Accordingly, I pass following order - ORDER In view of the findings, as discussed above, if confirm the Order-in-Original Nos 18/2011-12 dated 25.04.2011, 16/2011-12 dated 25.04.2011, 17/2011-12 dated 25.04.2011 & ST-II/Div-IV/91-R/2011-12 dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Service TaxII, Division-IV, Mumbai Commissionerate. The subject appeals are disposed off in above terms." 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that the services on which the refund of CENVAT credit is denied, is misconceived as the same have been utilised in providing the output services by the appellant. So far the works contract service is concerned the same have been used with respect to repairs of the premises. It is further urged that modernization, renovation and repairs of office premises is specifically included in the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Similarly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further urges that under similar facts and circumstances this Tribunal in appellant's own case in appeal by Revenue, vide final order dated 25.11.2014, 2015 (38) STR 410, wherein the adjudicating authority sanctioned part of the refund claim and rejected a part of it for the reason that some 21 services received were not used in providing output service and hence, not classifiable as input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the other reason was that CENVAT credit was availed on the input services against input invoice which pertains to the period prior to registration. The Division Bench of this Tribunal has held, in view of the amendment, vide Finance Act, 2010 to Notification No. 5/2006 with retrospective effect from 14/3/2006, wherein for the word used in, the words used for was substituted, it had been held by the Tribunal that from the amendment it is apparent that the scope of the admissibility of input services used in providing export services have been brought on par with input services used for providing output services. It is further held that there is no reason to come to any sort of conclusion that the input services in question are not u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to show cause, it was explained that all input services received by the assessee are used only in relation to export of consulting engineer service and in absence of any other activity being performed by the assessee, the input service cannot be used for any other purpose, it was held that there is no nexus in respect of 15 services availed and the service exported. The Tribunal remanded the matter for the part of the refund rejected, and the Honble High Court had framed a question for consideration (i) whether the Tribunal was correct in passing the impugned order which was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice as the show-cause notice did not dispute the power of the Central Government to grant refund of CENVAT credit and (ii) whether the Tribunal was the right in holding that the Central Government had no power to grant refund of CENVAT credit, when the same was not an issue before it and (iii) whether the Tribunal was right in acting beyond jurisdiction in interpreting the provisions of the statute and holding that the Central Government does not have power to grant refund. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority ha....