2015 (3) TMI 1230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER. Shri L.S. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner(AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per : B.S.V. MURTHY All the 10 appeals, ST/707-716/2011, have been filed challenging a common OIA No.26-38/2010 dt.29/11/2010. The refund claims have been filed for the period from April 2009 to March 2010. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this Tribunal in the Interim Order No.79-152/2014 dt. 29/08/2014 in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd.& others Vs. CCE as regards nexus and submitted that this issue can be considered by the original authority in the light of the decision referred to and also other decisions that have been considered by the Tribunal while passing the order and also other decisions that may be cited. We find our....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here was no nexus between the output service exported and input services were used when credit was taken, the refund of the same also could not have been denied since the substantive ground of taking CENVAT credit in the first place being correct would lead to the obvious conclusion that ultimately if it gets accumulated the refund has to be sanctioned. Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) is issued to p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... yardsticks for establishing nexus for taking credit and refund of credit is correct. Moreover as submitted, Notification No.7/2010 amended Notification No.5/2006 that retrospective effect from 14/03/2006 to provide that input/input service used for providing output services which have been exported instead of used in providing output service also supports the claim of the appellant. Moreover acco....