TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and was accepted by the Department as service. In view of the above, merely because the assessee has inadvertently indicated the said turnover in the return against the column for final product instead of output service, that will not dis-entitle them for the refund. With regard to denial of refund on account of challenge to eligibility of certain input services, I find that these input services are essential and are in fact used for provision of output services by the Appellant. I also find that when the assessee claimed cenvat credit on these input services, the same was not challenged. It is settled principle, that there cannot be different yardsticks in allowing the credit and granting the refund. In view of this, I hold that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) considering the submissions of the Appellant rejected the refund claim to the extent of ₹ 21,23,009/-. The Appellant had accepted before Commissioner (Appeals) the rejection of refund by the original authority of ₹ 70/-. The Appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in respect of the total amount rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is as under: Rs. 1. Time barred refund claim 16,84,883 2. Restriction of refund claim pro-rata related to Embroidery Software Development 3,22,092 3. Transport service charges 86,723 4. Xerox charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his contention with various case laws including that of Deepak Spinners Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore - 2014 (302) ELT 132 and Elcomponics Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida 2012(279) ELT 280 and Global Energy Food Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2010 (261) ELT 627. His alternative submission is, in any case, the period of one year should be computed from the date of receipt of foreign exchange for the service exported and not from the date of invoice. For this preposition he relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vodafone Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune III in Order No. A/31-39/14/CSTB/C-I dated 18.12.2013, which considered service tax rebate on account of export of service. Restriction of refund related to embroidery software development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Revenue, Shri N N Prabhudesai submits that when Notification No. 5/2006 (supra) specifically provides for time limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, refund filed beyond the period of one year from the date of invoice is rightly rejected by the lower authority. With regard to the embroidery software service, he submit that the Appellant being a service provider should not have mentioned embroidery software service as final product in their return and therefore the rejection of refund on this account is also correct. With respect to denial of refund on account on certain input services, he reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, actual export of underlying service and receipt of foreign exchange is not in dispute. Also for the past period the assessee has been carrying out the same activity and was accepted by the Department as service. In view of the above, merely because the assessee has inadvertently indicated the said turnover in the return against the column for final product instead of output service, that will not dis-entitle them for the refund. I hold accordingly. 5.3 With regard to denial of refund on account of challenge to eligibility of certain input services, I find that these input services are essential and are in fact used for provision of output services by the Appellant. I also find that when the assessee claimed cenvat credit on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
