TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls are identical i.e. denial of refund of accumulated/unutilised Cenvat Credit of Service Tax under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, therefore I am deciding all these Appeals together by way of this common order. 3. The Appellant, a Captive Business Process Outsourcing Company of BNP Paribas SA, is engaged in providing support services to its group companies located globally. They are primarily exporting its output services and receiving consideration in convertible foreign exchange. The Appellant procured various input services which were utilized in the provision of services and duly claimed Cenvat Credit being eligible input services as per rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit rules, 2004. According to the Appellant, no proceedings under Rule 14 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry of refund claims filed by the Appellant for the period April, 2013 to March, 2016 which are in issue in the instant Appeals is as under: Sr. No. Particulars April 2013 to September 2013 October 2013 to March 2014 April 2014 to September 2014 October 2014 to March 2015 April 2015 to September 2015 October 2015 to March 2016 Total A B C D E F G H I 1 Appeal No. ST/88731/18 ST/88734/18 SR/88741/18 ST88733/18 ST/88739/18 ST/88740/18 2 Refund Claim filed on 28-03-2014 30-09-2014 30-03-2015 30-09-2015 31-03-2016 30-09-2016 3 Order-In-Original dated 13-03-2015 08-05-2015 22-07-2015 26-02-2016 25-07-2016 27-01-2017 4 Total refund claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission that in post-amendment period for deciding refund application the concerned authority has to only ensure that the formula prescribed in the said Rule has been complied with by the claimant and that the authority has no power to go into nexus issue in order to deny the refund to the claimant. Per Contra, Learned Authorised Representative appearing for Revenue submitted that the exclusion clause was inserted vide Notification No. 28/2012-CE(NT) dated 20/06/2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 under Rule 2(l) ibid which specifically excludes certain services, viz. club & association services and works contract services and therefore the Appellant is not entitled to get the Cenvat Credit on those services. He further submits that the decision of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5 provides for any refund of Cenvat Credit and nowhere in this Rule there is a provision to determine the correctness about the availment of Cenvat Credit. Its only Rule 14 ibid which provides for recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat Credit. I find force in the submission of learned Counsel that since availment of credit has not been questioned by the department in terms of Rule 14 ibid, the refund benefit cannot be denied on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services. This Tribunal in Appellant's own case on an identical issue, for the period April, 2012 to March, 2013 and April, 2016 to September, 2016 in the matter of M/s BNP Paribas India Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East repo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s extracted herein below: "7. In this case, the department has not disputed the fact regarding export of output service by the appellant. The dispute raised in the present case were in context with non-establishment of nexus between the input and output services, service description provided in the invoices 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 R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tituted Rule 5 of the rules, there is no requirement of showing the nexus between the input service and the output service provided by the assesee. Since the refund under the said amended rule is governed on the basis of receipt of export turnover to the total turnover, establishing the nexus between the input and output service cannot be insisted upon for consideration of the refund application." 8. 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." There is no dispute that the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal in appellants' own case covered both pre and ....