2016 (12) TMI 1449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disposed of by the common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services such as Business Auxiliary Service, Consultancy Engineering, IT enabled services. They are availing CENVAT credit on service tax paid on input services periodically. The appellant has filed four refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006, the details of which are given below: Appeal No. Order-in-Original No. Period Amount claimed E/20939/2015 200/2011 dt.31.3.2011 Oct. 09 Mar. 10 Rs.4,54,469/- E/20940/2015 465/2012 dt.30.4.2012 Oct. 10 Dec. 10 Rs.3,56,852/- E/20941/2015 1073/2012 dt.29.10.2012 Jan. 11 Mar. 11 Rs.4,37,847/- E/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igher judicial fora holding these services as input services. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has disallowed the refund on these five input services on the ground of lack of nexus. The learned counsel further submitted that the nexus issue was not raised even in the show-cause notice. He further submitted that these services are directly linked with the business of the company and they very much fall in the definition of input services. 4.1 The learned counsel further submitted that as regards IT and software service , the appellant is engaged in technical and engineering design service for which information technology software are essential and core of the business without which appellant cannot deliver the output s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v) DSCL Sugar vs. CCE: 2014 (34) STR 58 (Tri.-Del.) (v) Castrol India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (291) ELT 469 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (vi) Kijiji India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (32) STR 661 (Tri.-Mum.) (vii) Utopia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST: 2011 (23) STR 25 (Tri.-Bang.) (viii) KPMG vs. CCE: 2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri.-Del.) (ix) Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (30) STR 572 (Tri.-Mum.) (x) PTC Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2014 (35) STR 632 (Tri.-Mum.) (xi) CST vs. Mercedes Benz Research & Dev.: 2013 (30) STR 257 (Tri.-Bang.) (xii) Golden Tobacco Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (30) STR 594 (Tri.-Mum.) (xiii) CCE vs. Mavenir Systems : 2012 (27) STR 510. 4.5 He further submitted that the authorities cited above squarely covers the case of the appella....