TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious services under Rule 5, Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 against export of service and the period in dispute is from October, 2016 to June, 2017. The appellants are engaged in providing services namely Business Auxiliary Service and majority of their customers situated abroad for which they receive remuneration in foreign currency and the services rendered by them qualify as 'export of service'. 3. During the period in dispute the appellants filed three refund applications and the adjudicating authority vide three separate Orders-in-Original dated 6.6.2019 sanctioned part refund and rejected the refund claim of Rs.19,64,416/- on various grounds including 'no nexus'. On appeal filed by the appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. CGST, Mumbai East; 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 539 (Tri.- Mumbai), (iii)Sequoia Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. CGST, Mumbai; Final Order No.A/86138/2022 dated 1.12.2022 in STA/87174/2019 (iv) KKR India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. CGST, Mumbai Final Order No. A/86106-86107/2022 dated 25.11.2022 In the matter of BNP Paribas India Solution Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee therein allowed the refund claim u/s. 5 ibid by holding that since the provisions of Rule 14 ibid has not been invoked, the refund of Cenvat credit as claimed by the Appellant under Rule 5 ibid cannot be denied. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced hereunder:- "5. I have hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East reported in 2020 (2) TMI 224-CESTAT Mumbai, set aside the denial of refund by the department to the Appellant on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between the input and output services, after discussing Rule 5 ibid in detail. The relevant extract of the said order is as under : "xxxx xxxx xxxx 6. Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules was su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Rule 5 ibid, refund of input service credit is permissible on compliance of the formula prescribed therein and not otherwise. The relevant paragraphs in the said order are extracted herein below: 3. Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was substituted vide Notification No., 18/2012-CE(NT) dated 17.03.2012, with effect from Appeal No. ST/88....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion." 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 post amendment period and also the services which are in issue herein. So far as the decision in the matter of Maersk Global (supra) is concerned, I am afraid that the learned Authorised Representative is not correct in his submission that the said decision pertains to preamendment period. Similarly, while interpreting Rule 5 this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Cross Tab Marketing Service ....