TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they are entitled to the refund of accumulated unutilised Cenvat credit of duty, which they filed with their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. 3. The Revenue objected to the said refund claims on the ground that the credit relates to various Port Services, Courier Services and GTA Services, which are post removal services and for which the service tax credit cannot be allowed. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated for denial of refund claim. 4. During adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner observed that the said services cannot be held to be covered by the definition of "Input Services" under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, he referred to another Notif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05 (Tri. -Bang.); and (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat Vs M/s, Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 (49) S.T.R.179 (Tri. -Ahmd.). 7. We, by appreciating the submissions made by both sides and after going through the impugned orders, we find that the contention made by learned Authorised Representative are factually incorrect. Order-in-Original passed by Assistant Commissioner very clearly observed in the finding portion as below:- "These services such as Port Services, Courier Services and GTA Services are post removal services and for which the service tax credit cannot be allowed as they do not have any relevance with in or in relation to the manufacture of goods as defined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces availed by them on post manufacturing activity and not from the date specified in the notification. Therefore, the impugned order should be sustained and time-limit aspect and also on eligibility to certain services under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007. As is clear from above, the refund claim filed in terms of Rule 5 but the adjudicating authority submits that the same cannot be equated with the refunds under Rule 5 and the benefit of Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007 is required to be examined. Similarly, Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has observed that the appellants filed a refund claim dated 03.05.2008 for such credit to the extent of Rs. 1,02,031/- lying unutilized in their credit account, u....