TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of refund claims filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 consequent to the issuance of Notification No.27/2012 and amendment of Rule 5 of said Rules. Also involved is the issue of nexus between the input service on which credit is availed and the output service provided. 2. Learned Counsel, Shri Jayaram Hiregange, appearing for the appellant, submits that the credit of Krishi Kalyan Cess has been denied on the ground that the same is not mentioned in the invoices though it was paid; credit availed on input services like Business Support Services, Health Insurance, Event Management Services, Rental Charges on accommodation provided to employees, Rent of cafeteria was denied; out of pocket expenses incurred on Chartered Accountant Service and Management Business Consultant Service was also denied. On the other issues, he submits as follows: 2.1. In respect of Appeal No. ST/20676/2021, he submits that the issue of nexus cannot be looked into at the stage of granting of refund in view of the decision in CC Vs Convergys (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2009 (16) STR 198 and Sentinin Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST, Appeal-II, [2021] 123 taxmann.com 372 (Hyderabad-CESTAT). 2.2. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is Rs. 6,57,247/- (incl cess). However, as per Form-A submitted, the CENVAT credit taken on inputs for the said period is declared as Rs. 41,31,073/-, as the claimant have claimed inputs credit availed from May, 2009 to June, 2012 by bunching all the quarter together and claiming refund of Rs. 35,85,534/- in the quarter April, 2012 to June, 2012. In para 12 of OIA 36 to 40/2017 dated 13.01.2017, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has stated that the original authority has not appreciated the fact that the appellant is a 100% EOU and in terms of Board Circular No.120/01/2010-ST, dated 19.01.2010, the appellant is entitled to avail the credit being a 100% EOU and the restriction of the credit to be availed only for the quarter for export does not apply. The OIO was therefore remanded back to the original authority for fresh adjudication, taking due note and cognizance of the discussion on specific issue in para 12 of the OIA and the general principles as laid down in the order. I have taken due note and cognizance of the above and I observe that this Circular (No.120/01/2010-ST, dated 19.01.2010) is applicable to Notification No.5/2005-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise, Mysore Vs Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd.,2010 (258) ELT 141 (Tri. Bang.) (ii) Fine care Bio-systems Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, 2010 (20) STR 193 (Tri. Ahmd.) (iii) Amdocs Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2013 (31) STR 249 (Tri. Mumbai) (iv) Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore-I, 2018 (5) TMI 1710-CESTAT Bangalore 2.2.5 He submits that this Bench in the case of John Deere (India) Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order MANU/CM/0193/2019 dated 14.06.2019 held that refund claim needs to be filed within time frame provided under the amended provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules. They have filed the refund claim within the period prescribed and the same cannot be denied. 2.3. In respect of Appeal No. ST/20678/2021 learned Counsel submits that in the first round of litigation, learned Commissioner had allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside OIA No.173/2017 holding that: Thus, the time limit therefore has to be computed from the last dated of the last month of the quarter, which should be the relevant date for the purposes of examining if the claim is filed within the limitation of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial authorities are not expected to traverse beyond the scope of established law and therefore, calculation of Net Cenvat Credit and thus eligible refund was in order. 3.1. He further submits that Health and Insurance Service availed by the appellants in some quarters is not admissible as consequent to the amendment in CENVAT Credit Rules from April 2011 as held in the following case laws: (i) Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd Vs CCT, Bengaluru North Commissionerate as reported in 2019 (6) TMI 67- CESTAT Bangalore. (ii) Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCT, Bengaluru North Commissionerate as reported in 2019 (6) TMI 66- CESTAT Bangalore. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 5. I find that the main submissions of the appellant are that the issue of nexus cannot be discussed at the stage of refund and that the departmental officers cannot traverse beyond the directions in the remand order. Coming to the first issue, the appellants have claimed credit on input services like Business Support Services, Health Insurance, Event Management Services, Rental Charges on accommodation provided to employees, rent of cafeteria was denied; out of pocket expenses inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.27/2012, I find that the appellants have relied upon the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore Vs Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd., Fine care Bio-systems Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, Amdocs Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune and Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore-I (all supra). However, I find that the impugned case is factually different from the above cases. In the above cases, the refunds under question were under Notification No.05/2006 whereas the refund in the impugned case is as per Notification No.27/2012. The appellant claimed that initially, they have filed refund claim under Notification No.5/2006 however on the insistence of the Department they have filed the same under Notification No.27/2012. I find that this Bench has gone into the issue, in the case of John Deere (supra), as submitted by the learned Authorized Representative, and has observed as under: 5.4. The appellant argues that the definition of "net Cenvat Credit‟ consists of two parts. The first part deals with total Cenvat Credit availed on input services by the output service provider whereas the second part deals with....