TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ORDER In dispute is the disallowance of the refund of Rs. 7,63,725 though sanctioned by the original authority to M/s Indeus Life Science Pvt Ltd under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) Mumbai-II vide order-in-appeal no. MUM-SVTAX-002-APP-399-16-17 dated 6th September 2016. Appellant had claimed refund of Rs. 9,73,425/- paid as service tax to provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Central Excise, Pune - I v. Sai Life Sciences Ltd [2016 (4) STR 882 (Tri. Mumbai)] which placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in SGS India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2011 (24) STR 60 (Tri.-Mumbai)] as affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. In that matter, as well as in the present dispute, it is the contention of Revenue that the place of provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te authority. M/s Indeus Life Science Pvt Ltd sought a refund claim in accordance with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. While restricting the claim to a lesser amount, the original authority had not issued any show cause notice to justify the proposed restriction. It was Revenue that chose to challenge the sanctioned amount in review proceedings. It is indeed questionable whether it was le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... refund beyond that was claimed but specifies that there is scope for enhancement of that which was restricted subject to sufficient cause being shown to the respondent. This would presume that the enhancement detriment in appeal is limited to the show cause notice with which the proceedings leading to the appeal commenced. Such a show cause notice has not been issued in the present instance. 6. ....