2026 (8) TMI 1597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Miscellaneous applications, seeking change of cause title to the appeals are allowed and accordingly, the changed name of the respondent is being incorporated in this order. 2. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged inter alia, in providing various taxable services defined under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellants provide the taxable services to their clients located within and outside India. The appellants avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the input services. During the disputed period, the appellants had filed applications under Rule 5 of the CENVAT C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such ground. Further, the appellants have also contended that there is no mismatch of the figures indicated in the export documents vis-à-vis inward remittances received by them in the form of FIRCs. It was submitted that since the impugned order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly dealt with the issues involved in the appeals filed before him, and therefore the same are not justified and liable to be set aside. 4.1 We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund benefit, by holding that taking of CENVAT credit on the disputed services is not proper and justified. However, on perusal of the case records, we find that the Department had not invoked the provisions of Rule 14 ibid read w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....we are of the considered opinion that denial of refund benefit on the ground of non-establishment of nexus cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant has to be allowed on such ground. 4.3 With regard to rejection of refund benefit on the ground that the formula laid down under Rule 5 ibid had not been succinctly followed by the appellants, we find that no specific reasons were assigned as to which provision under Rule 5(1) ibid has not been complied with by the appellant. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that on an identical set of facts, in the case of the appellants themselves, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal, reported in [2022 (8) TMI 1155]. In view of the fact that the issue was not de....