TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... captive unit of M/s.Mckinsey & Company, USA. The entire services are exported by the appellant. Appellant filed refund claims pertaining to various periods between October 2012 and June 2013 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR 2004). The original authorities rejected part of the refund claims. The grounds for rejection of part of the refund claims was (i) invoices without address and missing invoices (ii) input services on which credit taken are ineligible input service since they did not have any nexus with output services exported. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order 28.03.2017 did not find any force in the averments of the appellant to establish nexus between the input services received and the output servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir eligibility of the disputed input services, Ld.Advocate submits that Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 was completely overhauled when the Union Budget 2012 was presented. He submits a copy of the Budget Speech wherein in para 173 of the speech, the Hon'ble Finance Minister has conveyed to the Parliament introduction of the new scheme to simplify refunds without resorting to voluminous documentation or verification. vii) Ld. Advocate draws attention to TRU circular No.334/1/2012-TRU dt. 16.3.2012 where it has been clarified that by substituting the entire Rule 5 of CCR 2004, the claim for refunds under that rule will not require the kind of correlation that was earlier needed between exports and input services used in such exports. Ld. Advo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o into the export of services has been an irritant for long. I now announce a new scheme that will simplify refunds without resorting to voluminous documentation or verification. As an added incentive, such refunds will also be admissible for taxes on taxable services that have been exempted." 6. I also find that Tax Research Unit of the CBEC had issued a Circular No.334/1/2012-TRU dt. 16.3.2012 elabnorating the changes made in service tax. The relevant portions relating to the change brought about in Rule 5 of the CCR Rules is reproduced for ready reference : "2. No more will the most often-asked question "which taxable service is being provided?" be relevant; no more will an exporter be asked whether an input service has been used in e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refunds after the amendment to Rule 15 w.e.f 1.4.2012 is required to be done on a more liberal basis without insisting for one to one correlation. That however will not mean that the input service can also be one which is specifically barred by Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004. To this extent, I find merit in the argument of Ld. A.R. However, while this may be so, before rejecting any credit on the ground that the related input service will not fall within the ambit of Rule 2(l), a show cause notice will necessarily have to be issued to the claimant, which is the ratio laid down in the Tribunal's decision in Exl Service. Com India Pvt. Ltd. cited by the ld. Advocate supra. Discernably, in the instant case, appellants have waived their right to....