TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent PER: S.K. MOHANTY Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is engaged in providing the taxable service under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service". During the disputed period, the appellant had provided such services to its parent organization, located abroad. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on the input services used in, or i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal of the appellant was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2018, in upholding rejection of refund by the original authority. Feeling agreed with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that for denying the benefit of cenvat credit on the disputed input services, the department has not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he records. 5. I find that both the authorities below have denied the benefit of refund to the appellant solely on the ground that the disputed services are not confirming to the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(l) ibid. Further, the department has also taken the stand that benefit of refund should not be available to the appellant for the reason that there is no nexus between th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect of establishing nexus between the input and the output services, the authorities functioned under the statute cannot go beyond the statutory provisions, in interpreting the provisions differently, in support of rejection of the refund application. In this case, since no other grounds were raised by the department for denying the benefit of refund other than the nexus aspect, I am of the view ....