2026 (4) TMI 373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The facts in brief are the Appellant had submitted 3(three) refund claims for the period from April, 2012 to May, 2013 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Adjudication authority has rejected the claims on different grounds and aggrieved by the said order, appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) as per impugned orders dated 10.07.2017, after considering the eligibility of the Appellant against each claim, allowed the appeals partially by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for verification and re-quantification of the refund claims. Aggrieved by said order, present appeals are filed. 3. When the appeals came....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r in the show cause notice, further as per the finding in the impugned order it is specifically stated that refund claim was submitted on 30.11.2009 for the period for April 2009 to September 2009 and adjudication authority specifically held that the claim is filed within the time limit in terms of the section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944. As regarding the finding related to improper of address in some documents, the issue was considered by this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Nexus Engineers vs CCE & GST, Lucknow (2024 (17) CENTAX 259 (Tri. Allahabad) where the refund was denied on the ground that the invoices against which the Appellant taken the credit was not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the findings, the impugned order is unsustainable and we set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any." 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the Appellant is a 100% service exporter with no domestic clearances. The entire accumulated credit relates exclusively to input services used for providing exported output services. Denial of refund defeats the fundamental objective of Rule 5 of CCR 2004. He further submits that on Rule 4A deficient invoices, the deficiencies were on the part of the service providers and the Appellant should not be penalised for vendors' lapses. The Appellant received and paid for the services. When substantive evidence of service receipt and payment is available, proce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....21 (8) TMI 814 - CESTAT BANGALORE, c. J.P. Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (42) S.T.R. 196 (Tri.-Mumbai) d. Apotex Research Pvt. Limited 2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-BANG. e. Development Centre (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, [2015] 63 taxmann.com 152 (Bangalore - CESTAT), f. Megma Design Automation (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (40) S.T.R. 800 (Tri. -Bang.) g. Royal Hatcheries P. Ltd. Vs. State of A.P [(1994) 92 STC 239 (SC)] h. Jalal Plastics Vs. UOI [1981 (8) ELT 653] i. Gramophone Co. of India Vs. CCE [1991 (52) ELT 247 (Del.-CEGAT)] j. M/s. AIA Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST-Ahmedabad-II - 2017 (9) TMI 1629-CESTAT Ahmedabad 5. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) f....