2019 (11) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us grounds. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore, all the three appeals are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The details of the refunds in all the three appeals and other details are given herein below: Appeal No. ST/23727/2014 ST/23728/2014 ST/23729/2014 Period of Dispute July to September 2009 October to December 2009 October to December 2008 Refund claimed Rs. 8,14,222/- Rs. 39,39,034/- Rs. 34,23,481/- Show-cause Notice No. IV/16/564/2010-ST(R)/8611/2010 dated 13.9.2010 IV/16/864/2010 ST(R)/1202/10 dated 21.12.2010 IV/16/832/2009 Ref. Dn.II/859/10 dated 24.12.2009 OIO No. No.879/2011 dt.30.11.2011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... input services, the refund has been rejected on the ground that there is no nexus with the output service. In this regard, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund on the basis of lack of nexus, non-submission of documents and the debit notes are not proper documents for claiming CENVAT credit and for other procedural irregularities. Ground for rejection Services Involved Input services do not have nexus with output service • Rent-a-cab Service • Pandal and Shamiana Service • Event Management Service • Outdoor Catering Services • Landscape Maintenance • Sewage Treatment Plant • Custom House Agency Service No finding on nexus with resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain services on the ground that there is no direct nexus between the input services which are used for providing taxable output service which is exported, but the said services have been held to be input services by various decisions of the Tribunal. For each service, she has given the decisions rendered by the Tribunal holding that service as an input service on the ground that they are essential for rendering output service. Service Relied upon decisions Rent-a-cab Scheme Operator's Service • CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd.: 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.) • CCE, Bangalore vs. Bell Ceramics: 2012 (25) STR 428 (Kar.) • Deloittee Support Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given any finding with regard to the nexus. She also submitted that these services also fall in the definition of 'input service' as the same are necessary for rendering output service which are exported. 5.3 She further submitted that with regard to rejection of refund on account of non-submission of invoices, she fairly concedes that before the authorities below, appellants could not produce the invoices and the said invoices have been annexed with the appeal paper also and they are ready to produce the same before the original authority for verification of the invoices. 5.4 She further submitted that rejection of refund claim on other procedural irregularities, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund on the basis that debit n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....slative intent and it is improper to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute itself. It is submitted that the impugned order has erred in adding words to a statute and read words into statute which are not there. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: • State vs. Parmeshwaran Subramani: 2009 (242) ELT 162 (SC) • Mayfair Leather Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Union of India: 2011 (272) ELT 193 (All.) 5.7 She made reference to the TRU Circular issued from DOF No.334/1/1010-TRU dated 26.2.2010 which clarified the reason behind the amendments to the refund Notification. She also submits that it is not open to the Department to examine the admissibility of CE....


TaxTMI
TaxTMI