TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icular time duration and the service provided was being simultaneously used by the appellant by Supervising and Monitoring the activity in the entire duration. Thus, it cannot be correct to say that the service provided by the SPIL was not used by the appellant. The revenue s argument is that the entire service was provided on the date of invoice is totally fallacious and illogical. Thus, the appellants received and consumed the service while they were participating in the development of technology by supervising and monitoring the same. There are no merit in the argument of the revenue that the services provided by SPIL was not used by the appellant and were exported as such - the agreement in respect of SPARC is also the same and, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical Consultancy Service. The appellant availed the Service Tax Credit of this service tax paid by SPIL SPARC. The appellant exported the said service on the same day on which they had availed the credit of the service received from SPIL SPARC. 3. The revenue argued that the service received from SPIL SPARC was never used by the appellant for manufacture of any goods or for provision of any service but was exported as such, and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of the said amount. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant is registered with Service Tax under the category of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service provider. Learned counsel argued that Cenva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f certain technology/Know-how. The appellant sub-contracted the generation of this technology/Know-how to SPIL SPARC. SPIL SPARC produced the said technology/Know-how and supplied the same to the appellant who in turn further supplied the same to SPGI on the same day when they took credit on invoice of SPIL/SPARC. The entire case of revenue is that the appellant have not used the service provided by SPIL SPARC and, therefore, they cannot avail the said credit of service tax paid by SPIL SPARC. It has been argued that the service received from SPIL SPARC has been directly supplied to SPGI without use by the appellant. The revenue has relied on the definition of input service which requires use of the input service by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was provided to the appellant and exported by the appellant on the same day is that the date of invoice is common. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the service was not provided in one day, the service was provided in a particular time duration and the service provided was being simultaneously used by the appellant by Supervising and Monitoring the activity in the entire duration. Thus, it cannot be correct to say that the service provided by the SPIL was not used by the appellant. The revenue s argument is that the entire service was provided on the date of invoice is totally fallacious and illogical. Thus, we hold that the appellants received and consumed the service while they were participating in the development of techno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
