TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, Export of Services Rules, 2005 and Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006. The refund claim was filed on 26/09/2012 as the assesse was not in a position to utilize the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services during the above period. 3. The appellant was not issued any show-cause notice proposing to reject the claim. They were not given an opportunity of personal hearing also. The original authority passed the Order-in-Original dt. 24/12/2012 granting refund of Rs. 52,33,074/- out of the total refund claim of Rs. 57,88,829/-. The credit taken on various input services like air travel agents service, management, maintenance or repair service, Chartered Accountant service, manpower recru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner(Appeals) on this point. He proceeded further to analyse the merits of the case and then upheld the rejection of refund of Rs. 4,41,981/- stating that there is no nexus between input service consumed and output services exported, by appellant. The appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 7. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri Harish Bindu Madhavan vehemently contended that the order passed by the original authority rejecting claim is unsustainable as the appellant was not issued any show-cause notice specifying the grounds on which the refund claim is proposed to be rejected. The appellant thus did not get chance to file a defence. The non-issuance of show-cause notice cannot be viewed as a mere technical brea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h authorities below for the reason that the input services have no nexus with output services. This rejection of refund of Rs. 4,41,981/- is liable to be set aside for the sole reason that no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant. The order-in-original was passed unilaterally without even granting an opportunity of personal hearing. 9. The learned AR Shri N. Naik defended the impugned order contending that though no show-cause notice was issued, the Commissioner(Appeals) had granted opportunity for personal hearing. That therefore the rejection of refund of Rs. 4,41,981/- on the ground that there is no nexus for input services with the output services is valid and proper. The appellant has failed to establish that such services are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 (D) Total Turnover Rs.49,98,83,330 (E) Total credit taken on input services Rs.65,58,699 Total unutilized credit on input service = Rs. 57,58,829 (ii) Refund of input service credit= (E x A) / D = 6558699x492117614 499883330 = 6456809 (iii) Amount of refund of input tax credit would be ( unutilized credit or refund eligible as per Rule 5 whichever is lower) = 57,58,829 13. Thus as per the formula, the total credit taken (E) has to be applied to compute the refund credit. The original authority first held on merits that Rs. 4,41,981/- is not eligible for refund as there is no nexus. This amount was deducted from the total claim of refund which is Rs. 57,58,829/- (i.e. 57,58,829 4,41,981 = 5....