2022 (2) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for the reasons assigned therein. 2. Heard Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Learned Additional Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the Revenue. 3. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the relevant documents/case-laws relied upon during the course of arguments. 4. The appellant made a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for Rs. 53,84,832/-, being the unutilized CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on input services used in providing output services, which were exported. The matter was taken up for adjudication and vide Order-in-Original No. 155/2018 dated 17.12.2018, the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund to the extent of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....38 of 2016 dated 09.09.2016 in Service Tax Appeal No. 42537 of 2015 and Final Order No. 40484 of 2020 dated 19.01.2020 in Service Tax Appeal No. 40481 of 2019, has considered the eligibility of the appellant and allowed the CENVAT Credit on: * Cleaning Service * Air Travel Agent Services * Car Parking Service * Banking and other Financial Services * Interior Decorator Service * Business Support Service * Event Management Service * Tour Operator Service * Foreign Exchange Service (Forex purchase) * Renting of Immovable Property Service To this extent, therefore, the rejection of refund cannot sustain. 6.1 In view of the above, the denial of CENVAT Credit on the impugned services relating to: 1. Car Parking Service 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad been submitted before the First Appellate Authority, but the same had not been considered. 6.6 In respect of consultancy service which provides for benchmark study in IT industry with respect to employee payroll, etc., provided by M/s. Aon Services India Pvt. Ltd., it is the case of the appellant that these services have been availed for analysing the payroll system of its employees and hence, is an eligible input service. 7. It is seen that most of these services are very much essential in running the day-to-day business of the appellant and are necessary for the smooth functioning of its business. Surprisingly, the First Appellate Authority has denied the refund has been denied for want of nexus. However, the Central Board of Excise ....