2019 (9) TMI 285 - HC - Service Tax

Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - export of services - HELD THAT - At the time of hearing learned counsel for the appellant by citing letter dated 5.9.2018 written by Assistant Commissioner (Legal) CGST Gurugram seeks permission to writhdraw the present appeal as the revenue involved in the present appeal is 22.22 lakhs which is below the thresh hold limit prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs as contained in instructions dated 11.7.2018. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.
2. Refund claims for unutilized accumulated Cenvat Credit.
3. Appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority.
5. Appeal against the order of CESTAT, Chandigarh.
6. Request for withdrawal of the present appeal due to revenue threshold limit.

Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal:
The judgment addressed a delay of 137 days in refiling the appeal, leading to the filing of CM 2225-CII/2019 seeking condonation of the delay. The Court allowed the condonation of the delay based on the reasons presented in the application.

Refund claims for unutilized accumulated Cenvat Credit:
The respondent company, engaged in providing back office support and IT-enabled services, availed Cenvat Credit on input services under Rule 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Due to exporting a majority of services outside India, the respondent had unutilized accumulated Cenvat Credit. Refund claims were filed for the period from April to September 2013, which were partially accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, the appeal by the respondent against this order was allowed by the Appellate Authority.

Appeal against the orders of the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Authority, and CESTAT:
The respondent's appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order was allowed by the Appellate Authority. The Revenue's appeal against the Appellate Authority's order was dismissed by CESTAT, Chandigarh. This sequence of appeals led to the present appeal before the Court.

Request for withdrawal of the present appeal due to revenue threshold limit:
During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the present appeal citing a letter from the Assistant Commissioner (Legal) CGST Gurugram. The letter highlighted that the revenue involved in the present appeal was below the threshold limit set by the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs. The Court, considering this request, dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn.