TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rimarily on the ground that certain services do not have direct nexus to output services provided by the appellant. 2. In all, the appellants have filed 8 appeals having similar issues in all these appeals and the denial has been on account of input services not having nexus with the output service which has been exported by them. Additionally, in some of these appeals, part of the refund claim has been disallowed on account of error in computing the eligible refund, service tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), Service Provider (Registered under Service Tax Law) raised invoice in Foreign Currency, registration under unregistered premises and other procedural lapses etc. 3. In so far as the denial of refund on account of following input services not having nexus with output services, viz: A - Information Technology Software Services B - Renting of Immovable Property Services C - Club & Association Services D - Banking & Financial Services E - Security Agency Services F - Travel Agents Services G - Clearing & Forwarding Agent Services H - Management & Repair Services (AMC) I - Supply of T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en below in Tabular Form for ease of reference: Sl. No. CESTAT Appeal No. Order-in-Original No. Order-in-Appeal Covered in the appeal Amount of claim pending in Tribunal in terms of appeal Refund already allowed post filing of appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal vide Denovo OIO No.16/2024 (Service Tax-R) dated 07.01.2014 Net Balance of Refund Pending in CESTAT in different Appeal 1 ST/1898/12 162/2011 ^ Dt:29-Nov-2011 19/2012. Dt:22-Mar-12 13,28,494 13,28,494 2 ST/1901/12 191/2011 ^ Dt:29-Oct-2011 2011 22/2012 Dt:22-Mar-12 48,50,122 40,25,283 8,24,839 3 ST/1899/12 169/2011 Dt:29-Oct-2011 2011 20/2012 Dt:22-Mar-12 79,69,805 72,39,966 7,29,839 4 ST/1900/12 170/2011. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervices are no longer tenable and on this ground itself the input services availed in respect of these services would have to be considered as having nexus with their output services and to that extent they are also eligible for refund under the extent rule. In so far as the remaining 4 services are concerned, we find that even in respect of these services, same have been held to be having nexus with the final output services and in lieu of various case laws cited and therefore eligible for refund. Therefore, taking both these aspects together, the entire rejection on the grounds of not having nexus would not be sustainable. Rejection on account of technical and procedural non-compliance: Coming to the other grounds taken by the Department for rejecting the claim, we find that the claims have rejected on various grounds, and they are taken up for discussion, as under: i) Error in computing the eligible refund, resulting in excess rejection of claim - This rejection of about Rs. 4,86,163/- covered in these appeals were due to wrong application of formula by the Department. The formula applied by the Department for computing the refund was on the Closing Cenvat Balance inste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat on similar issue Department has gone to Supreme Court against the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd.,[2017 (7) GSTL J128-(S.C)]. Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay and granted leave. We find that it is not a case where the appellants were not having service tax registration and it was only the case of additional premises which was in the process of being added to the central registration and therefore this appears to be a procedural error and it needs to be verified whether the central registration was in existence and there was a process already initiated by the Department for adding the additional premises on the date of those invoices were issued on which service tax has been admittedly paid by the appellant. Moreover, the judgments cited by both the sides would become applicable when there was no registration at all, whereas, in the factual matrix of this case, there appears to be central registration already in existence and the invoices being apparently been issued after the date of central registration. These facts need to be checked. There is an amount of Rs. 2,03,867/- involved in all these ap....