TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation & technology software services, defined as taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. During the disputed period, the appellant had filed refund applications under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that the entire output services were exported by the appellant and there was no scope for utilisation of the cenvat credit taken by the appellant for providing such services within the country on payment of service tax. The refund applications filed by the appellant were considered favourably by the original authority as well as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) partially and denied the benefit of refund in case of some of the input services on the ground that there were no nexus between such disputed input service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97 (Tri.-Bang.). With regard to claiming of refund twice in respect of the same invoice, he submits that the appellant had not claimed the refund benefit twice and to such extent, he submits that the appellant has adequate records to demonstrate that on the basis of the invoices, the refund benefit has been claimed only once and not twice. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since the disputed services have not been used for the intended purpose or conforming to the definition of 'input service', the benefit of refund provided under Rule 5 ibid should not be available to the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voices were not confirming to the input service definition provided under Rule 2(l) ibid and the invoices were not submitted by the appellant, establishing the fact that the refund benefit should be granted to it. So far as establishing the nexus between input and the output service is concerned, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd (supra) by relying upon the letter dated 16.03.2012 of TRU has held that under Rule 5 ibid, refund of input service credit is permissible on compliance of the formula prescribed therein and not otherwise. The relevant paragraphs in the said order are extracted herein below: 3. Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was substituted vide Notification No. 18/2012-CE (NT) dated 17.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the nexus between the input and output service cannot be insisted upon for consideration of the refund application." 8. In view of the above settled position of law, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, in so far as it uphold the adjudication order on the ground of nexus between the input and the output services. Accordingly, the appeals to such extent is allowed in favour of the appellant." 7. In view of above, the impugned order, insofar as it has denied the refund benefit on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between the input and output services, is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. 8. With regard to the other ground assigned for rejection of refund benefit i.e., taking of credit ....