TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly within time limit, and if date of rendering services is taken then obviously most of the claims would be time barred. As regards admissibility of CENVAT credit on construction service, the learned CESTAT relied on the decision in the case of Infosys Ltd. v. C.S.T., Bangalore (2014 (3) TMI 695 - CESTAT BANGALORE) wherein the definition of 'input services' has been considered and admissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of various services and the rationale to take such a view has been discussed. - No infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the learned Tribunal to hold otherwise, because it is a pure case of remand to consider admissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of various services - Decided against Revenue. - C.E.A. Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Engineering Service which was exported online? 4. Whether the assessee is correct in claiming credit before payment of Service Tax? 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and we have gone through the records relating to the judgment of the learned CESTAT. It appears that the assessee is a hundred per cent export oriented unit (EOU) registered under Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) for export of computer software and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES). Its basic area of work is providing product designs, modeling and analysis in car engineering etc. The assessee had entered into agreement with two car manufacturers in South Korea for providing design and analysis services. The assessee filed s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the claims would be time barred. The Tribunal has held that the relevant date would be the date of receipt of consideration and, when such decision has not been appealed against nor it has been reversed or overruled by any superior forum, the said judgment is binding. The learned CESTAT recorded no contrary decision. However, learned counsel for the appellant - Revenue asserts before us that a contrary decision has been rendered in the year 2014 by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. Unfortunately that judgment referred was neither produced before the Tribunal nor before us and even case number or cause title of the same could not be informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|