TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65 of the Act and also provides for exclusion. The appellant herein had registered himself with the service tax authorities for provision of export of services under the category of BAS and ITSS. Once an assessee has registered himself as provider of output services, it cannot be disputed by revenue that the appellant had not exported any services which falls within the meaning of Export of Service Rules, 2005. - appellant had registered with Hardware Technology Park and Software Technology Park of the Central Government which is an indicator that they are providing some services which are exported and do not fall under the exclusion clause of Export of Service Rules. Subject invoices indicate number, date, project for which it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Services (ITSS in short). The appellant is also registered as software export firm and they export their services mostly parent or to their sister units situated abroad. For the month of July 2008, appellant filed refund a claim of an amount which was lying unutilized in their CENVAT Credit account, claiming it to be the services which were received by them for rendering output services viz. BAS and ITSS. Adjudicating authority after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and considering their reply to the show-cause notice, came to a conclusion that the export invoice under which the services are claimed to be exported is not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 4A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence it is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter concern. It is his submission that revenue authorities have not disputed that the appellant had exported services and there is no dispute as to the fact that foreign exchange remittances are received against the bills which are raised. 3.2 He would then draw our attention to the definition of BAS and ITSS as also the provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 2004 and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He would submit that except for the findings that the invoices which are raised by the appellant for export of services do not match with the descriptions of the export services viz. BAS and ITSS, no other findings have been recorded by the lower authorities, which would indicate that all other submissions are accepted by the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by both sides and perused the records. 6. On perusal of the records we find that the issue is regarding refund of an amount lying unutilized in balance during June/July 2008. Undisputed facts are that the appellant here-in is registered with Hardware Technology Park and Software Technology Park created by Govt. of India for encouraging export of software services. It is also undisputed that the appellant had sought the service tax registration under the category of BAS and ITSS; that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on input services which were procured and utilized for providing output services under the category of BAS and ITSS; that all the services which are rendered by the appellant are either to their parent/sister concern f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by the appellant does not indicate export of any service either under BAS or ITSS and hence there was no export of output service within the meaning of Export of Service Rules, 2005 or Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We do not agree with the findings recorded by the first appellate authority for more than one reason. 6.3 Firstly, we find that Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 specifically indicates that the services in relation to taxable services should be specified in clause (105) of Section 65 of the Act and also provides for exclusion. The appellant herein had registered himself with the service tax authorities for provision of export of services under the category of BAS and ITSS. In our considered view, once an as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es which is the stated position of the Government of India, hence rejecting a refund claim on flimsy ground runs contrary to the government policy is an unacceptable position. 6.6 Fourthly, we called for invoices raised by the appellant and perused the disputed invoices. We find that the said invoices indicate number, date, project for which it has been issued, invoice addressed to the recipient of service, either parent/sister concern and indicates project code. The said invoice as has been issued and the annexures to the invoice indicates the project is in respect of a software developed and the purchase order number of the client who has placed the order. In our view the information which has been indicated on the invoice is sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
