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

2024 (12) TMI 1302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the appellant had filed refund claims for the period November 2007 to April 2008 amounting to Rs.61,12,804/- on 11.09.2008being the accumulated cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE-NT dated 14.3.2006. Appellant was issued with a show-cause notice on 25.11.2008 proposing to reject cash refund of the accumulated credit, alleging that the services exported by them was in the nature of Business Support Service but Information Technology Services which became taxable with effect from 16.05.2008. On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (A), who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntly followed by the Tribunal in a series of cases. Recently, this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CJK Knowledgeworks Global India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore vide Final Order No. 21037 - 21039 /2024 dated 17.10.2024 observed as: "6. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue involved in the present appeals for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for the quarters April 2008 to September 2008, October 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to September 2009. Undisputed facts are that appellant is a 100% EOU unit and provided export services which includes typesetting, composition, artwork, proof reading, project management, XML conversions, multimedia services and page desi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... claims are different and never proposed; hence, the order of the rejection of refund is bad in law. From the records, I find that the department had allowed the refund claims for the earlier period from January 2008 to March 2008 and also for the subsequent period from October 2010 to September 2013 i.e., much after the rejection of the present refund claims i.e., in the year 2019. The department has not raised any issue of the services provided by them while sanctioning the refund claims for the period October 2010 to September 2013. I find that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (supra) is subsequently applicable to the facts of the present case, the Appellant be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first ground in which the refund stands rejected is that the services which have been exported were not taxable during the relevant period. The Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 which has been issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 specifically allows refund of Cenvat credit availed on inputs or input services which have been used for providing output services which have been exported. There is no condition in the Notification which prescribes that the refund will be allowable only in cases where the output services exported is liable for payment of service tax. Hence, we find that such a view taken by the authorities below is without any basis. In any case the Tribunal in the case of KPIT Cummins Infosyste .....

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