2017 (7) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected by the lower authorities and aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order does not dispute the services provided by them. He argued that in terms of agreement dated 01/05/2007 executed between KLSM Japan and the appellant, they were required to maintain liaisioning with seafarers. "11.3 I find from the agreement dated 01/05/2007 executed between KLSM,J apan and the assessee (KLSM India) that as per Clause (vii) of para 1 (a) thereof that the assessee was to maintain liaisioning with seafarers from the region, who have completed their assignment on board the vessel and returned to their respective countries and to plan their training requirements f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s equivalent, per month. However, no evidence/document has been submitted in respect of another training institute viz. Sir Derek Bibby Maritime Training Centre. Hence, it is not possible to exactly know the nature of services received from them." The learned Counsel argued that Cenvat credit has been denied relying on the decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) and Manikgarh Cement 2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom). Learned Counsel argued that training is an integral part and therefore credit of the services received in respect of training of the crews cannot be denied. Consequently, learned Counsel argued that the refund claim should be allowed. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld erroneously sanctioned and the appeal filed by the department is liable to be allowed with consequential relief to them. 12. As regards the 12 appeals of the assessee filed for challenging rejection of refund in respect of credit relating to various other inputs services, I find that the adjudicating authority in all 12 impugned orders has rejected the entire refund claims despite the same involved various other input services, without discussing and deciding their inadmissibility to credit. I therefore, find the said orders to be non-speaking to that extent. Since the admissibility to credit of input services other than Management, training and coaching services has not been examined and refund denied without any discussion or decisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....permissible to deny Cenvat Credit already availed. In the instant case, the appellant had claimed refund claim and the same needs to be examined in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with notification issued there under. It is seen that the lower authorities has not deal with this issue. Lower authorities have gone into the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit already availed. In these circumstances, it is not possible to uphold the impugned order. If the lower authorities wanted to challenge the admissibility of credit, the same cannot be done while examining the refund claim of the appellant, without following the due process prescribed. 5. Notification No.5/2006 has been issued under the said Rule. It is seen that Rule 5 and the ....