TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and was engaged in providing Information Technology Software Services and Business Auxiliary Services. The appellant filed refund claim of Rs.1,05,64,228/- on the unutilized CENVAT credit paid on input services used for the services exported by them during the April 2010 to June 2010 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006. After due process of law, the Ld. Original Authority sanctioned Rs.86,24,409/- and rejected Rs.19,39,819/- as he held that the related input services had no nexus with the output services exported. Aggrieved by the rejection of an amount of Rs.19,39,819/- the appellant took up the matter before the Commissioner Appeals, who by his order dated 29.01.2018, rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all the copies of the input invoices with the initial claim itself. f) it is a trite law that before rejection of any amount the assessee should be informed about of the rejection. However, the learned authority has not afforded any opportunity to rectify the defects, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Had the learned authority provided a list of invoices / documents not available before the issuance of the 2nd OIO the appellant would arrange for its submission. The Ld. Advocate prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the refund be granted to them. 3.2 The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted on behalf of the respondent that; A) the said refund claim is liable for rejection for non-submission of releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012 dated 29.2.2012 is set aside and the instant appeal is allowed by way of a remand to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication taking due note and cognizance of the discussions on specific issues in the preceding paras and the general principles as laid down in this order. The appellant shall furnish the requisite documents as are statutorily required before the original adjudicating authority who shall process the claims and pass appropriate speaking orders after following the principles of natural justice." (emphasis added) 6. While the appellant was aggrieved with only a portion of the OIO which rejected a part of the refund amounting to Rs.19,39,819/-, the appellate order appeared to set aside the OIO No. 229....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without specifying and calling for any document required to be examined by him or the opportunity offered to submit such documents. He was again, unmindful of the fact that all the required documents were called for a detailed reply given and verified during the first round of adjudication and that the First Appellate Authority had directed him to follow the principles of natural justice. 9. Had the Ld. Original Authority read the Order of the First Appellate Authority dated 29.01.2018 carefully, he would have realized that the only issue that was contested and received the attention of the appellate authority was a question of law and fact regarding the lack of consideration of the nexus between the inputs and the output in line with Bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u remanded back the case to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision." However, he by his order dated 08.12.2021 approved of the action of the Ld. Original Authority passed beyond the express terms of the initial appellate order. 11. The original refund claim filed on 31.12.2010 continues to languish 14 years later. I find that the Original Authority in denovo proceedings at para 5.7 of his order dated 15.05.2020, had as per the appellate directions proceeded to examine as to whether the input services are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit and found that the eligible credit worked out to Rs 18,30,182/- as against Rs 19,39,818/- claimed. He only rejected the same for non-submission of documents which he had not specified or cal....