TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er conditions are satisfied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21479 & 21480, 22417/2014 - A/30396-30398/2017 - Dated:- 22-2-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Sh. Suresh Astekar, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeals are filed against the rejection of refund claim filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006/27/2012 dated 18.06.2012. 2. The appellants are Hundred Percent Export Oriented Unit (EOU), and export taxable services under the category of Information Technology Software Services (ITSS). 3. In the course of providi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs-in-Original. Hence these appeals. 7. The Ld. Counsel Sh. Suresh Astekar explained the details of the appeals, the period involved the amount of refund claim and the various input services which are shown in the tables below: Issue involved: Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules Appeal No. before CESTAT Impugned Order-in-Appeal No. date Period CENVAT credit refund rejected (Rs.) ST/21479/2014-SM No. 37 38/2014 (H-IV) S. Tax dated 07.02.2014 April 2012 to June 2012 Rs.1,09,922/- ST/21480/2014-SM Jul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Telephone service 0 9,265 0 9,265 7. Consulting Engineer 0 5,673 0 5,673 8. General Insurance 0 0 67,797 67,797 9. Business Support Service 0 0 22,021 22,021 Total 1,46,938 1,09,922 366,105 8. He submitted that the authorities below have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th legal requirements under various statues. 9. The Ld. AR, Sh. Nagraj Naik, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 10. I have heard the submissions made before me. The Ld. Counsel for appellant has explained how the various services are used by the company. The period involved in all these appeals is from April 2012 to December 2012. After 2012 Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has undergone amendment by which the word used for export of goods, used as intermediate product; used for providing output services has been deleted. Therefore, the authorities below have wrongly denied the refund. The appellants having paid service tax on the various input services used for providing output services which are exported, they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
