TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and rejected the Appeals there against filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in exporting taxable output service namely, 'Information Technology Software Service'. For providing the service, exported outside the country, the appellant availed various input services, defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereafter referred to as the 'Cenvat Rules', in short). The services provided by them being qualified as 'Export of Service', as defined under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (hereafter referred to as the 'Rules', in short), the appellant filed Refund Claim in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules read with the provisions of Notification No. 27/2012- CE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or nexus Refund has been allowed for the subsequent period vide Order-in-Original No. 19/REFUND/BDN/CGST&CX/ KOL-NORTH/17-18 dated 13-02-2018 and Order-in- Original No. 33/REFUND/STI/ ND/KOL/17-18 dated 13-05-2017. Refer 2017 (52) STR 497 (Tri.-All.) - CCE&ST, Noida vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 4. Bodyline Sports (ST/75551/18) Maintenance & Repair Service Rs.1,730/- No relationship or nexus Refer 2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri.-Del.) - KPMG vs. CCE, New Delhi 5. ABS Enterprise (ST/75550/18) Maintenance & Repair Service Rs.481.88 Invoice not submitted Copy of the Invoice is enclosed at page 53 of Appeal No. ST/75550/2018. 6. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (ST/75549/18) Maintenance & Repair Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1,774/- has come to be disallowed by mistake. 10. Deloitte Touche Toumatsu India Pvt. Ltd. Management Consultants (ST/75550/18) Rs.54,631/- No relationship or nexus Refer 2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri.-Del.) - KPMG vs. CCE, New Delhi 11. UCS Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Management Consultants (ST/75550/18) Rs.2,348/- No reason No reasons provided. Held as eligible input service. in 2014 (33) STR 96 (Tri.-Del.) - KPMG vs. CCE, New Delhi. Refund has been allowed for the subsequent period vide Order-in-Original No. 19/REFUND/BDN/ CGST&CX/KOL-NORTH/17-18 dated 13-02-2018. 12. First Advantage Pvt. Ltd. Management Consultants (ST/75550/18) Rs.4,713.20 No reason No reasons provided. But held as elig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iption The nature of service is clear from the Invoice itself (Sample invoice at page 47 of the appeal against the appeal Order No.297/STI/ Kol/2017dated 31-10-2017) 18. Prime Online Pvt. Ltd. (ST/75549/18) Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency's Service Rs.8,239/- Could not be correlated without description Refund has been allowed for the subsequent period vide Order-in-Original No. 19/REFUND/BDN/ CGST&CX/KOL-NORTH/17- 18 dated 13-02-2018. The nature of service is clear from the Invoice itself (Sample invoice at page 49 of the appeal against the appeal Order No.297/STI/ Kol/2017dated 31-10-2017) 19. RS Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ST/75549/18) Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency's Service Rs.2,77,288/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld.Advocate has also brought to the notice of the Bench that the ld adjudicating authority has contravened the principles of natural justice by denying the credit without granting any opportunity of personal hearing in respect of the Appeal Nos.ST/75550/18 & 75551/18. In this regard, reliance is placed during the course of hearing on the following reported decisions:- (i) 2015-TIOL-1044-CESTAT-DEL - Serco Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-III; ST - Refund - Even if the CENVAT credit was considered to have been taken wrongly, disallowing the same requires quasi-judicial process involving issuance of SCN followed by a speaking order: CESTAT. (ii) 2017 (51) S.T.R. 467 (Bom.)-GENERAL MILLS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al records. 7. I find that the transaction undertaken by the appellants qualified to be "export of service", as defined under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Since they were not in a position to utilize the accumulated Cenvat Credit, refund claim has been filed in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the provisions of Notification No.27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The present dispute is on disallowance of such refund claim under various heads on the ground of lack of nexus/co-relation between the input service and the out-put service. I find that in the present case, some of the input services do not qualify the definition of input services in terms of Rule 2 (e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find that ....