(1.) THIS application filed by the department (Appellant) seeks stay of operation of the impugned order. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we are of the view that the appeal itself is fit for summary disposal. Accordingly, after rejecting the stay application, we proceed to deal with the appeal. The Respondent had claimed refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on 23 services, which were claimed to be "input services" used for export of "Business Support Service". The refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. : 5/2006 -C.E. (N.T.) dated 14th March, 2006. The original authority, in adjudication of a show -cause notice issued by the department proposing to reject the refund claim, granted partial relief to the party. It granted refund of Rs. 47,60,846 out of total claim of Rs. 1,32,93,400. The balance claim of Rs. 85,32,554 was rejected for want of nexus between the exported output service and the so -called "input services". Aggrieved by this part of the decision of the Assistant Commissioner, the party preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter granted relief to the former after recording findings to the effect that the "input services" in question satisfied the essentiality test and hence a nexus between them and the exported service stood established. The present appeal of the department is directed against the appellate Commissioner's decision.
(2.) THE learned Additional Commissioner (AR), reiterating the main ground of the Appellant, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power of remand and could not have passed the order validly. Adverting to merits, he submits that there is no nexus between the output service and any of the "input services" in question. In this connection, he refers to paragraphs 23 & 24 of the Memorandum of Appeal. The learned consultant representing the Respondent argues in support of the appellate Commissioner's order.