TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012. The refund sanctioning authority allowed refund of Rs. 33,31,875/- and disallowed refund of Rs. 3,43,421/-. Against the said order the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide the order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Shri. Harish Bindumadhavan, submitted that the appellants were not issued a Show Cause Notice and thereby were deprived of an opportunity to put forward a proper defence in their case. He explained the various services and the amount involved which is tabulated as under as submitted by the appellant. Sl No. Description input service Details of disallowance (Amount in Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of operations and strengthen controls and hence has nexus with business 7. Management, maintenance or repair Services 26,058 Maintenance of Audio Visual Equipment, fire detection alarm for IT server room are not related to output services Without hardware/software maintenance it is not possible to deliver output service. The definition specifically covered as a part of input service. 8. Chartered Accountant Services/ Company Secretary Services 188 Out of pocket expenses of input service provider has no nexus with output service 9. General insurance Services 11 ,409 Property Insurance is not essential for rendering output service Part of business activity to safeguard the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay down any condition that assessee has to establish a nexus of the input services with the output services. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Emerson Innovation Center [2015-TIOL-887-CESTAT-MUM] to canvass the above contention. 3. Against this Ld. AR, Shri. M. Chandra Bose, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellants have not established the nexus of the input services and therefore the refund has been rightly disallowed. 4. I have heard the submissions made by both sides. The foremost contention raised by appellant is that the department has not issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to reject the refund claim. This Tribunal in the judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. The order-in-original was passed unilaterally without even granting an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. The department cannot reject the refund claim without issuing a show cause notice. The main ground for rejection is by relying on the decision in the case of Maruthi Suzuki Ltd., (supra). The said judgment was rendered with regard to inputs and not input services. Further, the same was revisited by the Honorable Larger Bench of Apex Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. UP Vs. CCE, Meerut-l - [2016-TIOL-20-SC-CX-LB]. In this regard the appellant has drawn attention to the amended provision contained in Rule 5. In the judgment passed by Tribunal in the case of M/s. Emerson Innovation Center relied upon by the ....