TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring together and a common order is being passed. 2. The appellant, in this case, is a 100% EOU and is engaged in the business of providing back office services, primarily computerized data processing services in areas of insurance and re-insurance Services. The entire output services are exported by the appellant to its group companies located in various parts of the globe. The appellant avails Cenvat Credit of Central Excise duty paid on the inputs/ capital goods and service tax on the input services for utilization towards the output services provided by it. Being a 100% EOU, there was no scope on the part of the appellant to utilize the Cenvat Credit for payment of service tax on the output services provided by it. Therefore, during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Rule 5 of the rules permits a service provider to claim refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit available in the books of accounts, which cannot be utilized in case of exportation of service. Thus, she submits that since there is no embargo/stipulation in Rule 5 of the rules for establishing whether the disputed service is confirming to the definition of input service, denial of refund claim on air travel agent service cannot be sustained. With regard to CVD paid on capital goods, she concedes that the appellant is not contesting denial of refund claim by the authorities below. With regard to the ground of rejection of refund applications for non-compliance of the requirement of sub-rule (6) of Rule 9, learned Advocate contended that being a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., such service has the nexus with the output service. Since Rule 5 of the rules is silent on these aspects, I am of the view that denial of refund benefit for air travel agent service on the ground that the said service does not qualify as input service, shall not stand for judicial scrutiny. Therefore, denial of refund benefit on such service is not proper and justified. 7. The appellant admits that it is not entitled for refund of CVD amount paid on the capital goods. Thus, I am of the view that the impugned order, denying the refund benefit of CVD amount cannot be interfered with at this juncture. Accordingly, the impugned order sustains, so far as it denied the refund benefit on the CVD amount claimed by the appellant. 8. With regard ....