TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le output service under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service', and 'Maintenance & Repair Services' and had been availing CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on various 'input services'. Since they were specialized in BPO services to countrywide home loans under the 'Business Auxiliary Service' and also 'Information Technology Software Service' for outside India, they are entitled for the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006. Accordingly, they filed various refund claims before the adjudicating authority. After adjudication of the case the matter was taken up with the Commissioner (Appeals). The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 33,91,087/- cannot be reduced to from the net CENVAT credit availed during the relevant period. 2.2 As regard the 17 appeals filed by the Revenue, he submits that in respect of Appeals No. ST/89493/13 and ST/89488/13, the amount involved is less than Rs. 10 lakhs in both the appeals therefore, the appeals are not maintainable in view of Government litigation policy in terms of Circular No. F.No.390/Misc.163/2010-JC dated 17th December 2015. Therefore these two appeals are liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable. 2.3 As regard other 15 appeals filed by the Revenue, he submits that in all the appeals the ground of Revenue is that in respect of some services there is no nexus between the input service and 'output services'.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed during the relevant period stands reduced to the extent of Rs. 33,91,087/-. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the refund to this amount. 3.2 As regard the Revenue's appeal he submits that all the services on which the assessee has availed the CENVAT credit were not used in providing the output service. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that such services has nexus with the output services and has wrongly allowed the refund. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 4.1 As regard the assessee-appellant's appeals No.ST/89165/13 and ST/89172/13 the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund on the ground of non-submission of invoices. However, we find that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m amount of the refund in the relevant period. If the above fact on the claim of the appellant is found correct the assessee-appellant is entitled for the refund of this amount. 4.3 As regard the Appeal No.ST/89493/13 and ST/89488/13 filed by the department it involved an amount which is less than Rs. 10 lakhs in each appeal. Therefore, both the appeals are not maintainable in the light of Government's litigation Policy as per the Circular No. F.No.390/Misc.163/2010-JC dated 17th December 2015. 4.4 Regarding the other 15 appeals filed by the Revenue, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined in detail regarding the use of each and every service and come to the conclusion that these services have nexus with the output servic....