2018 (6) TMI 380 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit – Refund of unutilized cenvat credit – case of appellant is that they will be entitled to the CENVAT credit already availed under Rule 2 (l) of the CCR 204. Accordingly, the refund u/r 5 is to be paid to the appellant – Held that:- As pointed out by the appellant, the issues pertaining to the period prior to January 2012 stands already disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his earlier order. Since the finding in the present order appears to have been passed without noticing such fact, we have no hesitation in holding that this part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) order is null and void since the same had already been decided by his earlier order.
–
Refund claim – various input services – Air Travel Agent – Business Auxiliary Service – Courier Agency – Custom House Agent – Event Management Service – Management, Maintenance and Repair service – Manpower Recruitment Service – Transportatio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
inal authority who will consider the same before passing order in the de novo proceeding for the period Jan-March 2012.
–
Appeal disposed off. – ST/41049/2016 to ST/41069/2016 – FINAL ORDER No. 40837-40857/2018 – Dated:- 15-3-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Rabeen Jayaram, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The MAs filed by Revenue for change of cause title are allowed. 2. The present set of appeals have been filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal Nos.103 to 123/2016 (STA-I) dt. 22.2.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I) Chennai. In the said OIA, the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of a batch of 21 appeals filed before him against various orders-in-original covering the period September 2009 to March 2012. 3. The dispute in all these cases is refund of unutilized cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant h
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
18. He submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) pertaining to the period prior to January 2012 covered in the present impugned order is infructuous and the order passed should be considered as null and void. 4.2 With reference to Appeal No.ST/41065/2016, covering the period January 2012 to March 2012, the counsel submitted that the appellant will be entitled to the cenvat credit already availed under Rule 2 (l) of the CCR 204. Accordingly, the refund under Rule 5 is to be paid to the appellant. However, he fairly concedes that the FIRCs for an amount of ₹ 49,54,919/- was not produced before the lower authorities at the time of consideration of the refund claims. He further submits that such FIRCs have since been received and appellant is in a position to produce the same for verification, if an opportunity is given. 4.3 Ld.counsel also submitted that authorities below have wrongly calculated the refund claim by deducting the credit utilized from the total cre
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s filed before him. After perusal of records, we find that, as pointed out by the appellant, the issues pertaining to the period prior to January 2012 stands already disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his earlier order. Since the finding in the present order appears to have been passed without noticing such fact, we have no hesitation in holding that this part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) order is null and void since the same had already been decided by his earlier order. To this extent, we dispose of Appeals ST/41049-41069/2016 (other than ST/41065/2016) as infructuous. 8. Next, we turn to the disputes for the period January 2012 to March 2012. The appellant has availed cenvat credit in respect of various services namely Air Travel Agent, Business Auxiliary Service, Courier Agency, Custom House Agent, Event Management Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair service, Manpower Recruitment Service and Transportation of Goods by road. It is claimed that all suc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
can be produced for verification. In view of the above submissions, we are of the view that a further opportunity is required to be given to the appellant for submission of such FIRCs for verification before the original authority who will consider the same before passing order in the de novo proceeding for the period Jan-March 2012. 10. From a perusal of the earlier OIA No.89 to 110/2014 (M-ST) dt. 14.03.2014, it is seen that the issue whether the credit utilized can be deducted from the total credit availed by the appellant for applying the formula has been held in favour of the assessee. Following the same, we set aside the method of arriving at the refund claim by the authorities below in the present order. 11. In the result, the impugned orders in respect of Appeal Nos. ST/41049-41064 and 41066 to 41069/2016 are set aside as null and void and appeals are disposed of accordingly. Appeal No.ST/41065/2016 is allowed partly in the above terms with consequential relief, if any, on abo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =