TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evisionary authority), whereby the petitioner's revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was rejected. The petitioner had filed the said revision application assailing an order-in-appeal dated 12.04.2022 (hereafter the order-in-appeal) passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner's appeal against an order-in-original dated 31.01.2020 (hereafter the order-in-original) was rejected. 2. The petitioner claims rebate of Swachh Bharat Cess paid on certain input services. The revisionary authority rejected the petitioner's revision application on the sole basis that the petitioner had also availed the refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (hereafter the CENVAT Rules) for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7 of the order-in-appeal sets out the issues taken up for consideration by the appellate authority. The same is reproduced below: - "7. I find the following issues in these appeals to be decided: - (i) Whether the Service Tax Department has taken a contradictory stand in so far as provision of services between and among related persons not amounting to export of services and which was not pointed out during audit of books of accounts by the audit wing of the Department whereas claims made by the appellant for refund/rebate can be rejected, whether is correct or not; (ii) Whether the services rendered by the appellant fall within the purview of definition of "Intermediary" Services or not; or alternatively, (iii) Whether the serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein had not produced essential documents such as Bank Statement, the copies of challans/ST-3 returns etc. to substantiate their claims." 8. The revisionary authority had, thereafter, proceeded to reject the petitioner's petition solely on the ground that the claim for rebate under Rule 6A of the Service Rules was not maintainable on account of the petitioner filing for the refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules. 9. Mr. Harpreet Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable as the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal were passed by the authorities in Bangalore. However, on merits he does not counter that the impugned order has been passed solely ....