Tax Management India. Com
Subscription  |   New User  |   Login
Acts/ Rules Notifications Circulars Forms Tariff/ ITC HSN Case Laws Manuals Short Notes
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Q Logic India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune

2016 (7) TMI 1175 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund of un-utilized cenvat credit - brought forward of credit - determination of amount to be refunded for export of services for the relevant period - amount of CENVAT credit restricted as per service tax return for the quarter - Rul 5 of CCR - export of Information Technology Software Services during the period April-June,2012 - Held that:- It was held in the case of WNC Global Ltd [2015 (11) TMI 905 - CESTAT MUMBAI] that for the purpose refund, Cenvat credit of any particular quarter will i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

exported, in such case entire Cenvat credit availed by the appellant has to be refunded to them. - It is also pertinent that undisputedly entire services of the appellant are exported, in such case entire Cenvat credit availed by the appellant has to be refunded to them. In my view the formula provided in the notification for calculation of refund amount is workable only in a situation when the assessee is engaged in the provisions of services which are exported as well as provided in the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

PP-360-13-14 dated 5/2/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune -III, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the refund claim of ₹ 6,39,121/- for the period April - June, 2012. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in providing "Information Technology Software Services". They had filed refund claim for ₹ 31,71,969/- on the ground that during the period April-June,2012 they had exported taxable output services valued of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the Cenvat credit of ₹ 25,59,408/- pertaining to the period of claim i.e. April- June, 2012 is only admissible therefore the same was sanctioned. Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 26,560/- was held inadmissible for reason that the same is for hall charges, food charges, parking services which is in the name of Neha Sarpotdar therefore it is not input service hence the same was reduced while sanctioning refund claim. Thus Adjudicating authority have not sanctioned the refund of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

particular quarter and any credit availed before April, 2012 cannot be claimed in the subsequent quarter April- June, 2012. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant is before me. 3. Shri. V.Y. Khare, Ld. Company Secretary appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no dispute that the refund claim of ₹ 6,12,463/- is against the Cenvat credit availed in the month of February, 2012. However, refund in respect of this amount was admittedly not filed for the quarter ending Ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ary to March, 2012 therefore it is wrong to say that appellant has filed second refund claim for same quarter. He further submits that in the appellant's case 100% output service is exported therefore entire Cenvat credit availed by them irrespective of the period is otherwise refundable. The period and formula will be effectively applicable only in a case when the appellant is engaged in the sale of services for exports as well as DTA. Since in the present case, 100% services are exported t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of earlier quarter shall be included for the purpose on refund in the quarter where it was brought forward. 4. Shri. B. Kumar Iyer, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. I find that both the lower authority have rejected the refund claim of ₹ 6,12,463/- on the ground that this credit pertains to period April, 2012 therefore the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



Share:            

| Home | About us | Contact us | Disclaimer | Terms | Privacy |

©Taxmanagementindia.com
A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.
All rights reserved.

Go to Desktop Version