TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant, M/s Halliburton Technology India Pvt Ltd, a unit functioning under the Software Technology Park (STP) scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy notified under the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 and engaged in providing scientific and technical consultancy service , sought refund of ₹ 60,69,760 for the period April-June 2012 under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Claim was filed on the ground that services for which the inputs/input services were obtained had been exported under Export of Service Rules, 2005 and owing to inability to utilise the credit availed. 2. The original authority noted that exports of ₹ 19,58,62,983/- had been certified by Chartered Accountant and that foreign inward remittance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vider of output service avails of drawback or claims rebate of service tax under the Export Service Rules, 2005 in respect of such tax. Since it is a fact that in the month of March 2012, the Appellant had utilized the CENVAT credit for payment of Service Tax on the Output Services which had been exported, and claimed rebate of the said Service Tax under Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19/04/2005 issued under the Export of Service Rules, 2005, the above quoted proviso specifically disallows the refund of CENVAT credit availed during March 2012 which has also been excluded from the amount of Net CENVAT Credit . This conclusively establishes the correctness of the decision of Ld. Respondent regarding denial of refund claim attributable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the original authority as pertinent. That authority has merely disallowed the credit in balance as on opening day of the relevant quarter. The impugned order has gone into other aspects too. Normally, such considerations can weigh with appellate authorities if assessee has been placed on notice on these aspects. Not only does this not appear to have occurred but the appellant was not even served with a notice. Thus the denial of ₹ 20,63,447/- was without the pre-requisite of a notice. The absence of such notice precludes me from examining the aspects that have been elaborated in the impugned order. 8. The interests of justice can be served only by restoring the claim for refund and placing the appellant on notice for the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
