TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services were used when credit was taken, the refund of the same also could not have been denied since the substantive ground of taking CENVAT credit in the first place being correct would lead to the obvious conclusion that ultimately if it gets accumulated the refund has to be sanctioned. In the present case, the availment of credit is not contested by the Revenue and the appellants having exported the services cannot be disentitled to refund under Rule 5 on the ground that the exported services are exempt - there is no substance in the submissions of the learned authorized representative as far as interest on delayed payment is concerned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/Additional Evidence/20557/2021 in Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed cannot be denied at the stage of sanctioning of refund as held by CBEC Circular dated 120/01/2010-ST dated 19/01/2010 and which was following in the following cases: a. Commr. of C.Ex., Delhi Delhi-III Vs. Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (48) S.T.R. 173 (Tri.-Chan.)] b. Microsoft Global Services Center (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., C. Ex. S.T., Hyderabad-IV [2021 (44) G.S.T.L. 264 (Tri.-Hyd.)] c. The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV Vs. M/s. Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (11) TMI 72 Telangana High Court] 2.1. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no dispute about utilization of input services in the export services affected by the appellant. The refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue reiterates the findings of Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal and submits that the miscellaneous application filed by the appellants under Rule 10 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1992 is incorrect; this ground cannot be an additional ground in terms of the said rule; additional relief cannot be equated to additional ground. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 5. We find from the facts of the case that the appellant s claim that they rely on the following services:- a. BPO and Call Centre Services b. IT Consultancy Services c. System Integration and Testing d. Software Development Service e. Software Maintenance Service 5.1. We also find that Department has not disputed the cenvat credit when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of export of exempted services subject to the satisfaction of other conditions prescribed in Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T), dated 14/03/2006 and the Revenue shall verify the same. 5.2. We also find that Tribunal has taken a similar view in AXA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Repro India Ltd. (supra). In view of the above, we find that the availment of credit is not contested by the Revenue and the appellants having exported the services cannot be disentitled to refund under Rule 5 on the ground that the exported services are exempt. 5.3. We further find that the appellants have filed a miscellaneous application for seeking interest on delayed payment in terms of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. We f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nutilized Cenvat credit is a special beneficial scheme with self contained procedure providing for the manner and method of its implementation, and hence any refund claimed under the Rules would be governed only by the provisions of the Scheme and the general provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act cannot be resorted to. The High Court of Gujarat concluded that the Cenvat credit is nothing but duty paid by the supplier of inputs which are dutiable goods manufactured by the supplier or dutiable services rendered by the service provider; when such goods/services are utilized for further manufacture or providing service, which are dutiable, the manufactured goods or service provided carry the duty paid by the supplier of inputs as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation under Section 11B of the Act in the light of the reasoning in the aforesaid decisions. This Court concurs with the reasons assigned in the aforesaid decisions to hold that the Revenue would be obliged to pay under interest for the delayed refund as contemplated under Section 11BB of the Act even for the delayed refund of the unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Notification dated 18-6-2012. There is also considerable force in the submissions on behalf of the respondent that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court Ranbaxy Laboratories v. Union of India reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) that there cannot be any dispute about the liability of the Revenue to pay interest under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
