2019 (9) TMI 955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner seeks to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court in spite of an alternate remedy of an Appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1994. 3. The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is with the business of providing customer services, data management and back office administration services for the airline, travel and transportation industry. The Petitioner had obtained a registration for taxable service category of business auxiliary services. According to the Petitioner the Petitioner could not utilize a CENVAT Credit availed on input services used in export of business auxiliary services. The Petitioner centralized its registration at Mumbai of all their units and the refund claims were subseq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d had filed refund claims pertaining to the period before the date of registration. The Commissioner held that in the absence of original input and output invoices, it is not possible to ascertain authenticity of the claim. He held that copies of all self attested input service invoices as eligible for CENVAT Credit, copies of self attested output service invoices, nexus statement have not been produced. The Commissioner concluded that the Petitioner had not fulfilled the basic condition of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, by the impugned order rejected the claim of refund of the Petitioner of Rs. 3,32,77,659/-. 5. We have heard Mr. Nankarni, learn....