2021 (3) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012. Since all the issues involved in all these nine appeals are identical, therefore, all the nine appeals are being taken up together for discussion and disposal. 2. The details of all the nine appeals are given herein below: Sl. No. Appeal No. Refund Period Disputed refund 1 ST/20390/2020 Oct. 2013 to Dec. 2013 2,16,568 2 ST/20391/2020 Jan. 2014 to Mar. 2014 3,05,821 3 ST/20392/2020 July 2014 to Sep. 2014 1,67,476 4 ST/20393/2020 Jan. 2015 to Mar. 2015 2,97,764 5 ST/20394/2020 Apr. 2015 to Jun. 2015 1,20,389 6 ST/20395/2020 Jul. 2015 to Sep. 2015 9,13,703 7 ST/20396/2020 Jan. 2016 to Mar. 2016 7,74,155 8 ST/20397/2020 Apr. 2016 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal and the High Courts. He also submitted that the findings in the impugned order on the point of nexus are misconstrued and determination of eligibility of refund is not akin to determination of eligibility to input credit. He also submitted that both the authorities have grossly erred in rejecting the refund on input services on the ground that the absence of such input service will not adversely impact the quality and efficiency of the provision of the output service. Further, both the authorities have not appreciated the ambit and scope of revised definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He also submitted that after the clarification issued by the Department vide its letter dated 16.3.2012 wherein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit at the time of claiming refund. For this, he relied upon the following decisions and Circulars: • CBEC Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.1.2010 • Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2020-TIOL-1696-CESTAT-CHD • Kline Ship Management India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (12) TMI 1481-CESTAT-MUMBAI • CST, Mumbai-II vs. M/s. Technip India Ltd.: 2017-TIOL-3708-CESTAT-MUM. • Verisign Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018-TIOL-1473-CESTAT-BANG. 5.2 He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly relied upon the Board Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.1.2010 for the purpose of establishing the nexus with the output service exported. This Circular is not applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t service' as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as all the invoices for these input services relates to maintenance of gyms. This submission of the learned AR has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and he did not press for refund of these amounts in Appeal No.ST/20397/2020. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have claimed refund on all these input services which are essential for running the business of the appellant. As the appellant is a 100% Export Orient Unit and does not have any DTA service and hence, they have filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (supra), appellant is also entitled for grant of interest on delayed refund claim beyond the period of three months. It is pertinent to note that the apex court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) has held as under: "9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central....


TaxTMI
TaxTMI