2018 (4) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tant Commissioner (AR), for respondent In all these appeals, the identical issue involved is that whether rejection of refund claim on the ground that certain services are not admissible input service is correct or otherwise. 2. Shri Gajendra Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that firstly, the refund claim filed under Rule 5 was rejected on the ground that certa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....17- CESTAT Ahmedabad; (ii) Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (42) STR 886 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iii) Ranchi Club Ltd. - 2012 (26) STR 401 (Jhar.); (iv) One Advertising & Communication Services Ltd. - 2012 (27) STR 344 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (v) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - 2017 (49) STR 261 (P&H); (vi) Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. - 2016 (11) TMI 858 -CESTAT Hyderabad. 3. Shri V.R. Reddy, learned Assistant Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otice and after carrying out the process of adjudication, order should have been passed holding that whether the said input services are admissible input services or not. Thereafter a decision on refund should have been taken. However, without carrying out the process of adjudication, he straightaway rejected the refund claim, which is not legal and proper. Further, on going through the nature of ....