2017 (10) TMI 1232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to June 2007.  The applicant has further stated that in the said Final Order, the Tribunal has not considered the grounds raised by the applicant vide miscellaneous application filed on 19/03/2015 regarding eligibility of 100% CENVAT credit refund of management, maintenance or repair service; architect service / consulting engineering service, management consultant service; real estate agent service; security agency service; banking service and erection, commissioning or installation service used for taxable service and exempted service in terms of Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.  It is further stated in the application that the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) both have disallowed the input service re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supra are eligible for 100% CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. For ease of reference, Rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules is reproduced below:- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), credit of the whole of service tax paid on taxable services as specified in sub-clause (g), (p), (q), (r), (v), (w), (za), (zm), (zp), (zy), (zzd), (zzg), (zzh), (zzi), (zzk), (zzq) and (zzr) of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act shall be allowed unless such service is used exclusively in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or providing exempted services. 3.2.   He further submitted that this Tribunal has failed to consider the ground raised by him in the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ritten submissions available on record and filed before the Final Order, clearly show beyond any doubt that the above legal issue though raised and argued on behalf of the appellant, was not considered and no findings were recorded thereon.  such error apparent from record needs to be rectified. 6.   In view of the ratio of the said decision cited supra and also the fact that additional grounds were not considered while disposing of the case of the appellant.  Therefore, I allow the application of the applicant for ROM, as mistake is apparent on the record by not considering the submissions raised by him and hold that rejection of refund in regard to above services is wrong and not sustainable.  Accordingly, the ....