TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the lower authorities when they rejected the claim and, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the refund sanctioning authority for consideration of the revised FIRCs now obtained by the assessee-appellant from the collecting bank and after considering the same, refund shall be granted to the appellant as per law. In any case, the department has not objected to the assessee-respondent taking the credit at the relevant time and the objection has been raised only at the time of filing of the refund claims. There cannot be two different yardsticks; one for permitting the credit and the other eligibility for granting credit. Whatever credit has been permitted to be taken, the same are permitted to be utilized and it is not possible to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 2008 22,08,253/- 2 ST/85275/2014 December 2007 25,38,313/- 3 ST/85277/2014 April 2008 to June 2008 12,08,128/- 4 ST/85278/2014 July 2008 to September 2008 43,40,291/- 5 ST/85344/2014 November 2007 75,24,552/- 6 ST/86018/2014 October 2008 to December 2008 13,39,242/- 7 ST/86017/2014 January 2009 to March 2009 46,18,967/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;in' providing output service which is exported without payment of tax. The use of the expression in is restrictive and, therefore, the assessee-respondent is not entitled for refund of various input services on which credit has been taken, such as travel agent service, consultancy service, repairs and maintenance services, car rentals, renting of immovable properties, etc. which are used for rendering of output service. The learned counsel for the assessee points out that the said notification has been retrospectively amended vide Section 74 of the Finance Act, 2010 wherein the word in has been substituted by the word for . Therefore, this objection no longer remains. The learned counsel also points out that even prior to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for implies 'for the purposes of' as held by the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce [AIR 1976 SC 348] of output service, refund of input service credit would be available. In any case, the department has not objected to the assessee-respondent taking the credit at the relevant time and the objection has been raised only at the time of filing of the refund claims. This Tribunal, in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi vs. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (16) STR 198 (Tri-Del.) had taken the view that there cannot be two yardsticks, one for allowing the input credit and another for refund of the credit taken. The Tribunal observed in the said case that there cannot be two different yardsticks; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
