TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o utilize their Cenvat credit. The mechanism under this Rule provides for cash refund. In respect of Appeal ST/20222/2014, SCN was issued on the ground that there was no correlation between input services utilized and the output services and invoices did not contain the proper description and classification, because of which the nexus is not getting established. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim to the extent of Rs.71,52,797/-. In respect of Appeal ST/21946/2014, the Department issued discrepancy memo calling for certain additional documents. After adjudication, refund of Rs.55,59,165/- was disallowed. In respect of Appeal ST/21683/2014, no SCN/discrepancy memo was issued. After adjudication, refund of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Heard both sides and perused the Appeal papers and other documentary evidence placed before us. 5. We find that the Department has denied the refund claim solely on the ground that the Appellants were not eligible for taking Cenvat credit for the input services used by them and in some cases, there was no nexus between the input services and output services. In both the cases, the issue is that of taking of Cenvat credit on ineligible services. It is also an admitted fact that no SCN was issued in terms of Rule 14 to recover Cenvat credit on account of such ineligible services. The refund under Rule 5 is filed for the Cenvat credit already taken on record by the Appellant. Only when the refund claim under Rule 5 was filed while scruti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the recoveries, the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944/Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 shall apply mutatis mutandis. It is an admitted fact on record that the department has not invoked the provisions of Rule 14 ibid for effecting recovery of the alleged irregular Cenvat credit availed by the assessee-appellant. Thus, under such circumstances, it can be said that taking of Cenvat credit on the disputed services by the appellant is in conformity with the Cenvat statute. Rule 5 ibid nowhere specifies that Cenvat credit can be denied on the ground of irregular availment or utilisation of the same. Thus, in absence of specific provisions contained in the statute, denial of the refund benefit provided under Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoked by the appellant/revenue against the respondent/ assessee. 16. As the availment of CENVAT credit by the appellant under Rule 3 of the Rules is not called in question, the denial to grant refund under Rule 5 of the Rules without there being any proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the Rules by seeking to deny the refund on the ground of the respondent/assessee availed CENVAT credit on input services, which according to the appellant/revenue have no nexus with the output service, in our considered view, cannot be held to be justified. 17. Further, it is to be noted that these appeals relate to period prior to amendment made to Rule 5 of Rules w.e.f 01.04.2012 and also thereafter. In so far the claim for refund of CENVAT credi....