TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Nos. ST/41464/2015 to ST/41469/2015 2. Brief facts are that the appellant is 100% EOU and registered with service tax department for providing Online Information and Data services, Business Support Service, Business Auxiliary Service, Maintenance or Repair Service, Information Technology Software service, Commercial training or coaching and manpower Recruitment Agency service etc. They filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of the unutilized cenvat credit pertaining to different periods. After due process of law, the original authority sanctioned part of the refund claim and rejected some amounts of which details are given in table below : S. No. Appeal No. OIO No./Date Period Involved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provided by them. The definition of "input services" during the relevant period prior to 1.4.2011 was wide enough to include the words "activities relating to business". The credit availed on input services by the appellant therefore ought to have been allowed as refund. 5. The second ground for rejection of refund is that there was mismatch of the figures of the refund claims and the cenvat credit as disclosed in the relevant ST-3 returns. The adjudicating authority did not consider their plea that the difference in figures was due to clerical error while computing the total credit in ST-3 returns which was subsequently rectified. After computing the amount of refund involved, they have shown the correct details in the revised claim. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit availed by them in the ST-3 returns. The amount mentioned in the refund claim did not match with the amount of credit disclosed in the ST-3 returns and therefore the adjudicating authority has sanctioned part of the refund claim as per the ST-3 returns only. The appellant cannot claim higher amount than that declared in the ST-3 return. 8. In regard to the interest on delayed refund, the Ld.A.R submitted that the appellant has been issued deficiency memos directing them to produce further documents. Appellant has taken much time to furnish these documents and therefore there is no delay in sanctioning the refund. It is submitted that the claim for interest on delayed refund is without any basis. Ld. A.R prayed that the appeals may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reason that the input service did not have nexus with the output service is set aside. 12. The second issue is that there is a difference in the amount of the cenvat credit disclosed in the ST-3 returns and the refund of credit filed by the appellant for the relevant period. It is submitted by the Ld. Consultant that the refund claim filed by them is higher than the amount of credit disclosed in the ST-3 returns, and that there is difference of more than Rs.5 lakhs. On perusal of records, it is not forthcoming as to which of the services this difference in amount is spread over. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the matter requires to be remanded. In case the appellant is able to furnish that they have availed these input se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing refund claim. So also, it is seen that there is difference in the amount of the refund claim and the amount of credit disclosed in the ST-3 returns. All these require much correlation and consideration by the adjudicating authority. For these reasons, we do not find any ground to grant interest as there is not much delay in sanctioning refund which is seen from the table above. The issue of interest on delayed refund is held against the appellant and in favour of the Department, 17. From the discussions, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration in above terms within a period of three months from the date of receiving this order. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed by way of reman....