TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Jun. 2016 1,86,229 9 ST/20398/2020 Jan. 2017 to Mar. 2017 7,84,566 Total 37,66,671 3. Bri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ination 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 the department has clarified that the new scheme for claiming refund does not require the kind of correlation that is noted at present be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia 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 applicable in the present case as per the learned counsel as the appellant is claiming refund under Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 and after the Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012, the TRU vide letter D.O.F. No.334/1/2012-TRU dated 16.3.2012 has clarified the refund procedure and has don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 (NT) dated 18.6.2012. Refunds have been rejected by both the authorities on the finding that the input services have no nexus with the output service of export, which according to various decisions and also the TRU letter dated 16.3.2012, is not required to be established. Further, I find that in the impugned order, Commissioner (A) has wrongly relied upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the Court, then....