TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise & Service Tax (Appeals) passed separate orders in respect of separate periods, and as the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed some refund claims and rejected others, both the Appellant and the Respondent had filed separate appeals before the CESTAT. By a common order, the CESTAT allowed the appeals filed by the Respondent and rejected the appeals filed by the Appellant. Hence the present appeals. 2. During the disputed period of April 2008 to March 2014 the Respondent rendered various types of back-office services to group companies located both within and outside India. In respect of the output-services provided outside India, the same are admittedly treated as export of services in terms of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 read with Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and are not liable to service tax. As the output services were exported without payment of tax, the Respondent was not in a position to utilise the input tax credit that had accumulated. 3. However, Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 provided for refund of such accumulated input tax credit. The said Rule provides that a manufacturer who clears the final product or an intermediate product fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the Respondent. By the 3rd order dated 30th March 2017, for the period October 2011 to December 2011, January 2012 to December 2012 and January 2013 to March 2014 the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim for certain services and disallowed the refund claim for other services. 6. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) both parties filed appeals to the CESTAT. The CESTAT, by a common order, allowed all the Appeals filed by the assessee and dismissed all the Appeals filed by the Revenue. 7. In this factual backdrop, Mr. J. B. Mishra, the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the CESTAT had erred in allowing the refund claims and holding that no nexus was required between the input service and the output service. The learned Advocate submitted that there has to be a nexus between the input service and the output service, and without such a nexus being proved, the refund cannot be allowed. He took us through the order of the CESTAT, where it held as under :- "6. The provisions regarding grant of refund of cenvat credit are contained in Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh the approved banking channel. We find that by placing reliance on the amendment that took place in Rule 5 ibid, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 28.03.2013 has allowed the refund benefit in favour of the assessee-appellants for the earlier period. But, it is surprising to note as to how the same jurisdictional Appellate Authority has taken a contrary view in the case of the assessee-appellants themselves for the subsequent period, especially when the statutory provisions remain the same for the entire disputed period covered for the earlier cases and the cases involved in the present dispute. 8. On reading of the order dated 28.05.2014 and 30.03.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that mainly on the hero for with the clearly assigned on a method for earning the okay ground of non-establishment of nexus between the disputed services and exported output service, he has denied the refund benefit to the assessee-appellants. Further, one of the reasons assigned for rejection of the refund claim is that on the basis of improper documents, the cenvat credit was availed by the assessee-appellants. Rule 14 ibid deals with the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itled to be refunded in the ratio of the export turnover to total turnover." 9. We find that by placing reliance on the Circular dated 16.03.2012, this Tribunal in the case of Acceleya Kale Solutions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Thane - 2019 (369) E.L.T. 803 (Tri.-Mumbai), has allowed the benefit of refund of cenvat credit availed on input services, holding that the nexus aspect cannot be questioned while dealing with the refund applications filed under Rule 5 ibid. Hence, the impugned order upholding rejection of refund applications on the ground of non-establishment of nexus cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. 10. .... 11. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, we also do not find any merits in the appeals filed by Revenue in disturbing the findings recorded in the impugned orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in allowing the refund benefits to the assessee-appellants. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, the impugned orders are modified, to the extent of allowing the appeals in favour of assessee-appellants and dismissing the appeals filed by the Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is permitted of duties/taxes only on such input/input services which are either used in the manufacture of exported goods or used in providing the output services exported, whereas the phrases used in the CENVAT Credit Rules permit credit of services used "whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final product" or "for providing output service". It was stated in the circular that the field formations tend to take the view that for eligibility of refund, the nexus between inputs or input services and the final goods/services has to be closer and more direct than that is required for taking credit. The said circular clarified that as regards the extent of nexus between inputs/input services and export goods/services, it must be borne in mind that the purpose is to refund the credit that has already been taken and that there cannot be different yardsticks for establishing the nexus for taking of credit and for refund of credit, and that even if different phrases are used under different rules of the CENVAT Credit Rules, they have to be construed in a harmonious manner. Reference was made to the definition of input services in Rule 2(l) which gives wide ....