2018 (5) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claim seeking refund of unutilised CENVAT credit paid on various input services used for services exported by them during the impugned period under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012. The original authority after following the due process, sanctioned some portion of the refund claims and rejected the balance amount on various grounds. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who also allowed certain refunds on certain input services and denied on other grounds. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the factual position and the legal position. He further submitted that the appellants are challenging the impugned order rejecting the refund claims on the following grounds. a) Not a speaking order; b) Order is contrary to allegations made in show-cause notice; c) Export of service under the category of Business Auxiliary Services; d) Inconsistencies in computation of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nvoices/incomplete invoice 1,59,043 7,11,847 - 6,507 46,509 9,23,906 Invoice addressed to unregistered premises 43,987 99,714 - - - 1,43,701 Excess credit claimed 3,740 - - - - 3,740 Double entry 5,381 - - - - 5,381 Apparent error in the Order-in-Original - - - 30,415 - 30,415 Grand Total 14,88,024 17,88,212 2,57,059 10,77,228 15,41,982 61,52,504                   4.1 He further submitted that the impugned order passed by both the authorities is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is also beyond the scope of show-cause notice. He further submitted that in the show-cause notice, the rejection with regard to export turnover of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) was not raised and the Order-in-Original has travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice. The show-cause notice has not raised any concern over non-consideration of services under BAS as export of service. Further, rejection of refund on acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vt. Ltd. vs. CCE" 2010 (18) STR 404 (Tri.-Mum.) 4.2 He further submitted that for the earlier periods vide various Orders-in-Original, the Department has allowed refund on BAS services and he has annexed the following Orders-in- Original. Sl. No. Order-in-Original No. Period 1 No.075R/2014 dated 05.04.2014 April - June 2012 2 No.111R/2014 dated.08.10.2014 July - September 2012 3 No.112R/2014 dated 08.10.2014 October - December 2012 4 No.113R/2014 dated 08.10.2014 January - March 2013 5 No.114R/2014 dated 08.10.2014 April - June 2013 6 No.115R/2014 dated 08.10.2014 July - September 2013 7 No.008R/2014 dated 31.12.2014 October - December 2013 9 No.900R/2014 dated 31.12.2014 January - March 2014   4.3 In view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the services rendered by the appellant under the category of BAS is Export of Service and therefore, the appellants are entitled to refund of CENVAT credit. 5. The next ground on which refund has been denied is on account of "inconsistency in the computation of amount eligible for r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the formula in a correct manner on account of which the refund amount has been substantially reduced. Further, I note that for the subsequent period, the original authority has correctly applied the formula to determine the eligibility of refund and those orders are on record produced by the appellant. Further, I also find that the appellant have annexed detailed chart for computation of eligible refund for different quarters along with his written submissions. In view of this, I hold that the original authority will reconsider and apply the correct formula for the purpose of determining the refund claim of the appellant. 6. The third main ground on which the appellant have raised objections for rejection of refund is on account of nexus with regard to various input services. 6.1 The first service is the "Event Management Service" and the learned counsel has submitted that Event Management Service falls in the definition of „input service‟ as has held by many decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court and he has cited the following decisions in support of his submission: * Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (32) STR 95 (Tri.- Mum.) ....