TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that refund was sought to be denied to them mainly only on four grounds (i) that there was no nexus with the output services which they have exported, (ii) the input service credit was ab initio not available to them because it was excluded from the scope of input services as per Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 and (iii) that they failed to submit necessary documents at the time of claiming of refund and (iv) that the documents were not in their name. As far as the first issue is concerned, it is his contention that once credit has been allowed, they are entitled to refund of the same and it cannot be denied on the ground that there was no nexus with the output services. With respect to the second issue, he submits that the credit was sought to be denied on the ground that works contract service was excluded from Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004; he asserts that the exclusion was related to construction of buildings and they had hired the services to paint the building which is not the same as construction of building and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of this credit as well as consequential refund. Insofar as the third issue of submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund of Rs. 57,786/- which was rejected on the lack of nexus and denied refund of Rs. 13,095/- on the ground that the appellants have not insisted on the input credit. Of the credit of Rs. 7,05,215/- rejected by the lower authority, he allowed a refund of Rs. 1,07,625/- and denied the credit of Rs. 5,97,590/- mainly on the grounds that the documents were not submitted or that the service in question was specifically excluded under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. (c) Appeal No. ST/30066/2018: In this appeal, the lower authority denied the credit of Rs. 42,386/- on the ground of nexus with the output service and an amount of Rs. 21,72,572/- on the ground that documents were not produced or that the documents are not in the name of the appellant. 6. I have considered the submissions by Ld. CA on behalf of appellant. I find that denial of refund in all these cases is mainly on the ground that the appellant was not able to produce the necessary documents before the lower authorities. Ld. CA admits that they were not able to produce the documents but will be able to do so now. These documents, in my opinion, when submitted by the appellant, need to be considered by the adjudicating authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claims as indicated herein above. (Pronounced in open court on 20.02.2019) ============= Document 1 TABLE-1 Sl.No. Disputed input Amt. service involved Rs. Lower authority's findings Appellant's contentions Decision of Appellate forum. 1 2 3 4 1 Business Support 1081 Services/ Business Auxiliary services- (meal 2. coupons) Management, maintenance or service Services utilized not in or in relation to the output services rendered. Services utilized not in in or relation to the repair (AMC charges, facility output management services services) rendered. Lawn 21,148 maintenance Carpet 63,000 Shampooing Photocopying 1,478 charges Pest control 1,390 Services 5 These services are specifically used for providing the output services and not covered in exclusion part of the definition of 'input service'; the services are generally availed for RSA tokens for security of assets of the appellants, payroll processing, management of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (carpet cleaning) XILINK INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES [2016 (43) S.T.R. 438 (Tri. Hyd.)] (pest control service and Photo copying service) ;Denial of refund to this extent is not legally sustainable and therefore set aside with consequential relief and the impugned order stands modified to this extent. OIA NO.: HYD-SVTAX-000-AP2-0192-17-18-ST DT 28.08.2017 Document 2 Total 87,016 3. Works Service Contract 8,48,391 4 General Insurance 1,27,118 Exclusion clause of rule 2(1) of the CCR, 5. Chartered Accountant's Service 9450 No Invoice 6 Installation equipment of 39,222 Total 11,12,278 Exclusion clause of rule 2(1) of the CCR, 2004 2004 No proper invoice These services are used by the appellants in the renovation and modernization of the premises and the services are specifically covered in the inclusive part of the definition of the input service as per Rule 2 (I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The insurance general services are availed by them for insurance of employees; the same is eligible as Cenvat credit. ....