Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1030 - AT - Service TaxEligibility for refund of Cenvat credit - Accumulated and claimed under Notification No. 5/2006 issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Information Technology Software Service (ITSS) not liable to tax - Held that:- it was submitted that this claim has been rejected on the belief that the claim related to the period April, 2008, but the claim actually related to the period subsequent to 16-5-2008, by which time ITSS had become liable to service tax. Appellant not registered till June, 2008 - Held that:- by following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. CC, Bangalore-CUS [2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE], even before registration, credit can be taken. No co-relation between export invoices and FIRC - Held that:- Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellant has not furnished details of all the exports in respect of which the particular FIRC pertains. The amount shown in the FIRC is more than the export invoices in respect of which refund is claimed. Ld. C.A. agrees that the appellant shall furnish the reconciliation statement showing all the export invoices relating to the particular FIRC irrespective of the period covered by the refund claims. Moreover, it was also submitted that department insisted on bankers certificate of the FIRC whereas the instructions are to the contrary. In my opinion, self-certification should be sufficient. Cenvat credit shown in the ST-3 returns does not tally with the amount claimed in the refund claims - Held that:- the refund claim is not based on ST-3 returns and ST-3 return is nothing but a report of transactions that have taken place over a period covered by the returns. On the ground that the figures in ST-3 returns were not correct or there was a substantial difference, refund claim cannot be rejected. For the purpose of consideration of refund claim, the relevant documents on the basis of which credit was taken, nature of service and its nexus and utilization of the service for rendering output service are relevant and merely because there was some mistake in the ST-3 returns, substantive right of assessee for refund cannot be rejected. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. - Matter remanded back
|