Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (11) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... justified. Further, it is to be noted that these appeals relate to period prior to amendment made to Rule 5 of Rules w.e.f 01.04.2012 and also thereafter. In so far the claim for refund of CENVAT credit for the period prior to 01.04.2012 is concerned, as Rule at the relevant point of time did not contain any prescription as to the nexus between input services and output service, the denial of refund on the said ground cannot be held to be valid. For the period subsequent to the introduction of substituted Rule 5 of Rules, the only prescription for grant of refund in respect of export of output service is by applying the formula specified. This Court is of the view that in the given facts and circumstances, the reasons assigned by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee and dismissing the appeal of the appellant/revenue. 6. Before the Tribunal, it is the admitted case that the respondent/ assessee is, inter alia, engaged in providing software related services for design, developing and testing for enhancement and improvement of its groups existing products and new products; that the respondent/ assessee is a 100% STP unit; that the respondent/assessee had exported the entire output service to its group companies located abroad; that the services provided by the respondent/assessee are categorized as taxable service, defined under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, the Finance Act ); that in view of the exportation of entire output service, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant/revenue is concerned, the same was dismissed. 10. It is against the Order-in-Appeal passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act to the extent the appellate authority had set aside the order rejecting the refund claim of the respondent/assessee and remitting the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration, the respondent/assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly, the revenue also filed appeal before the Tribunal, being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority to the extent it had dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 11. Heard Sri B.Narayan Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. 12. As seen from the order of the Tribuna .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the appellant/revenue have no nexus with the output service, in our considered view, cannot be held to be justified. 17. Further, it is to be noted that these appeals relate to period prior to amendment made to Rule 5 of Rules w.e.f 01.04.2012 and also thereafter. In so far the claim for refund of CENVAT credit for the period prior to 01.04.2012 is concerned, as Rule at the relevant point of time did not contain any prescription as to the nexus between input services and output service, the denial of refund on the said ground cannot be held to be valid. For the period subsequent to the introduction of substituted Rule 5 of Rules, the only prescription for grant of refund in respect of export of output service is by applying the formu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... formula laid down thereunder. 20. The above findings as recorded by the Tribunal, in our view, do not call for any interference, being a finding of fact. 21. Thus, this Court is of the view that in the given facts and circumstances, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for holding that the respondent/assessee is entitled for grant of refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the Finance Act, does not call for any interference. 22. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. 23. Accordingly, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 24. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates