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

2023 (11) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d Commissioner (Appeals) had negated the original order, holding that the relevant date for reckoning the limitation for filing refund application under Section 11B ibid, would be the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange by the exporter-appellants and in case where payment for the service had been received in advance, then the same would be the date of issue of invoice. Accordingly, he has partly allowed the refund benefit, except for the period January, 2014 to March, 2014, where the entire amount of refund claim was rejected on the ground that no details of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) were submitted by the appellants. However, on perusal of the case records, more particularly the refund application .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es for the Appellants Shri Piyush Bade, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : S. K. Mohanty Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing the output services, under the taxable category of management or business consultant service , business support service , and information technology software service defined under clauses (r), (zzzq) and (zzzze) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively. The appellants avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the input services which are used in the provision of output services. During the period from October, 2012 to March, 2015, the appellants had exported the output services in terms of Rule 6A of S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d denied the benefit of refund on the ground of limitation provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to the service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had negated the original order, holding that the relevant date for reckoning the limitation for filing refund application under Section 11B ibid, would be the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange by the exporter-appellants and in case where payment for the service had been received in advance, then the same would be the date of issue of invoice. Accordingly, he has partly allowed the refund benefit, except for the period January, 2014 to March, 2014, where the entire amount .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also rejected the refund claims on the ground that the disputed services cannot be considered as input service defined under Rule 2(l) ibid and that there is no nexus between the input services and output services. It is an undisputed fact in this case, that taking of Cenvat credit on the disputed services was never questioned by the department, which is evident from the fact that no proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 ibid, for recovery of the alleged irregular cenvat credit. Since, availment of cenvat credit by the appellants were not under dispute, claiming of refund of such credit on account of exportation of output services cannot be questioned inasmuch as Rule 5 ibid, nowhe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nover . 5. We find that by placing reliance on the Circular dated 16.03.2012, this Tribunal in the case of Acceleya Kale Solutions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Thane 2019 (369) E.L.T. 803 (Tri.-Mumbai), has allowed the benefit of refund of Cenvat credit availed on input services, holding that the nexus aspect cannot be questioned while dealing with the refund applications filed under Rule 5 ibid. Hence, the impugned order upholding rejection of refund applications on the ground of non-establishment of nexus cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, we allow the appeals in favour of the appellants on the ground that grant of refund benefit is not subjected to compliance of the provisions of Rule 2(l) ibid and denial on the gr .....

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