2015 (11) TMI 1185 - AT - Service Tax

Determination of refund claim of unutilized cenvat credit - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Export of Information Technology Software Services - Held that - While taking total turnover the Ld. Commissioner has considered ₹ 11,60,96,813/-which was disputed by the Revenue on the ground that the value of ₹ 2,64,94,460/- and 7,91,404/- though same was correctly deducted from export turnover, the same should not have been deducted from total turnover. I find that in clause (B) of Clause (E) of Sub rule(1), it is provided that while taking total turnover of export, turnover of service determined and clause (B) of Sub rule (1) as to be considered. If the export turnover in terms of clause (D) is taken then the amount comes to ₹ 11,39,06,643/-and value of other services i.e. ₹ 21,90,170/- is added then total turnover comes to ₹ 11,60,96,813/- which in my considered view was taken correctly by Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), therefore calculation as per the formula which resulted into further refund of ₹ 6,44,714/- is correct and in terms of provision of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000. In view of unambiguous findings of Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) and on my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is just, proper and legal which does not require any interference - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of partial refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Commissionerate.

Analysis:

1. The respondent filed a refund claim for export of Information Technology Software Services amounting to Rs. 34,15,210/- under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April, 2012-June, 2012. The adjudicating authority sanctioned a part of the claim but rejected a partial amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order and allowed a refund of Rs. 6,44,714/-. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

2. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly deducted the value of the refund claim from the total turnover, resulting in an additional refund claim. The Revenue argued that this deduction was not correct as per the definition of total turnover provided under Notification No. 27/12-CE(NT) dated 18/6/2012.

3. Despite no representation from the respondent, the appellate tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.

4. The tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the Revenue.

5. The tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly deducted the value of the refund claim from the total turnover in accordance with the export turnover and total turnover definitions provided under the notification. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The tribunal agreed that the calculation resulting in a further refund of Rs. 6,44,714/- was correct and in line with the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the tribunal's decision.