TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d CENVAT credit, Respondent had filed a refund claim for Rs. 42,73,752/-,Rs.4,08,01,708/- & Rs.45,47,264/- on the ground that the input services have been used in the export of output service. The Adjudicating authority held that the assessee had not produced any evidence in support of the utilization of the input services for the export service, there is no documentary evidence with regard to the use of the services, not submitted the rent agreement in respect of the input service provider, there is no correlation with the FIRC and export invoices ..etc. Thus the claim was rejected by the Adjudication authority. Aggrieved by said order, an Appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) held that as per the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Nos.56-58/2012 dated 29.03.2012 passed by the then Commissioner (Appeals-II), Bangalore and upon dismissal of the Stay Applications filed by the Department by this Tribunal vide orders dated 04.09.2013, 11.09.2013 & 12.08.2013, the said refund claims involved herein had been taken up for further adjudication by the then jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore and the above said common Order-in-Original Nos. 105/2014-Refund (C No. IV/16/72/2012 ST DIV II R-IV, Denovo) dated 09.06.2014 came to be passed as per the order of the Commissioner's (Appeals). 4. When the present appeals were came up for hearing on 20.09.2021, as directed by this Tribunal, Learned AR produced a memo specifying that the refund was made as fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces used in export of goods as held by the Appellate authority in the impugned order. Further submits that Respondent has submitted all the relevant documents and the details of the same was taken note by the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal. 7. Regarding the allegation that there is no nexus between the input services and output services, Ld Counsel draw our attention to the Circular dated 19.01.2010 and also judgments of this Tribunal in the matter of CCE Vs M/s Ravi Foods Ltd (2011 (271) E.L.T 436 (Tri. Bang) , M/s Nitin Spinners Ltd Vs CCE (2017 (52) STR 172 (Tri.Del), CST Vs Nuware Systems (P) Ltd (2013 (31) STR 716), CCE Vs Tilda Riceland Pvt Ltd (2015 (323) E.L.T 615 (Tri.Del), M/s TVS Motor Company Ltd Vs CCE (2017 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....slature intended to override Section 35E. Both sections have to be read harmoniously. In the present case, Annexure-I certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioners from time-to-time on executing B-8 security bond and on furnishing a bank guarantee. The Department has to follow the procedure under Section 35E for setting aside the Annexure-I certificate. Unless, the Annexure-I certificate is cancelled or rejected by the Competent Authority, by following the procedure under Section 35E, it is not permissible for the respondents to invoke Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issuance of show cause notices is without jurisdiction and is liable to be struck down." 51. We are of the considered ....