TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts are inter alia, engaged in the business of providing services in relation to the transaction processing, financial reporting, operation support services, trade central processing function, clearing management services, human resource services etc., to the various entities in the appellants' group company, located within and outside India. Those services provided by the appellants are in the nature of support services to the main business activity of the said group company. For providing those output services, the appellants got themselves centrally registered with the jurisdictional Service Tax Department. During the disputed period, the appellants had exported the output services substantially to the overseas entity(s). The appellants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, in denying the refund benefit to the appellants were appealed against before the learned Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), which were disposed of vide the Order-in-Appeal No. PK/238 to 254/ME/2017 dated 31.10.2017 (for short, referred to as "the impugned order"), wherein the adjudication orders were partially modified and the appeals filed by the appellants were partly allowed. Insofar as the impugned order, upholding rejection of refund claims in the adjudication orders, were assailed by the appellants, by way of filing these appeals before the Tribunal. 3. The provider of output services is permitted to take cenvat credit of service tax paid on the input services and the credit so taken in the books of accounts, is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. In the case in hand, it is not Revenue's contention that the formula laid down in Rule 5 ibid read with notification issued thereunder has not been complied with by the appellants in all the cases. Thus, under such circumstances, denial of the refund benefit on the ground that there is no nexus between the input and output services, cannot be sustained. We find that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) in Circulars dated 19.01.2010 and 16.03.2012 has clarified that while granting the benefit of refund of Cenvat Credit on account of exportation of the output services, establishment of nexus between the disputed services and the output service cannot be questioned. Further, we also find that by relying upon the said circulars ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1994/ 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 assesseeappellant. 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 5 ibid, in our considered o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbers) are allowed in favour of the appellants, by setting aside the concerned impugned orders. 5. Insofar as the above 5 numbers of appeals are concerned, we find that the show-cause notices issued to the appellants had alleged that the requirements of the conditions laid down in the Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 have not been complied with by the appellants. Since, compliance of the requirements under the said notification together with the conditions laid down in Rule 5 ibid are the condition precedent for claim of refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit, we are of the view that the appellants are required to fulfill such laid down conditions for the purpose of grant of the benefit of refund. Therefore, only for the....