2017 (2) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellants before Tribunal. 2. No one appeared for the appellants though matter was listed number of times.   3. From the grounds of appeal, it is seen that the appellants were registered with the Central Excise department at Nagpur, effective from 27/02/2007. During the period 30/04/2007 to 29/02/2008 they received certain input services and availed CENVAT credit in respect of these services. However, the invoices indicated the recipient of the service as Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Pune.  Therefore, the department was of the view that the appellant should not have taken service tax credit at Nagpur for the services received in Pune.  Accordingly, notice was issued and the adjudicating authority, after consi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it is a curable defect. Therefore, the case needs to go back to the original adjudicating authority to verify whether the input services on which credit has been availed was received at the Nagpur office and whether there is a clear nexus between the input services received and the output services rendered. The adjudicating authority can also verify whether there is any double counting of the amounts and any excess demand has been made on account of double counting of the invoices. Needless to say, the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make submissions in their defence before passing the adjudication order." 4. The lower authorities have held against the appellant. Input services on which they have clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is all input service for them. First of all the submissions of Noticce are not supported by any documentary evidence. Noticce has failed to bring on record to establish the nature of services rendered by noticee by availing the service under dispute so as to prove that there is clear nexus between the service under dispute received by them and claimed as input service and output service rendered by Noticee. Thus, though Noticce was given sufficient opportunity in compliance of CESTAT's order dated 12.10.2012, for submission of their claim supported by due evidence for verification, Noticee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate their claim. As such Noticee failed to prove that services in question are input service for rendering....