9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod. - Refund claim during subsequent quarters allowed Photocopies of Invoice / address on the documents - credit cannot be allowed against photocopies of documents which are not prescribed under Rule 9 of CCR - The admissibility to credit in dispute for the reason that the documents are not addressed to the respondents is remanded to the Original Authority for examination afresh - The appeals filed by the revenue are disposed - E/304/2010 & E/COD/33 to 35/2011 in E/460 to 462/2011 - 211-214/2011 - Dated:- 4-3-2011 - SHRI P. KARTHIKEYAN, JJ. Shri Harish Kumar, SDR for the revenue. Shri Anil Kumar.B, Advocate for the respondent. Per Shri P. Karthikeyan (Oral) Revenue has filed these miscellaneous applications No.E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax under various heads. As the respondents do not clear substantial part of its production in the domestic tariff area, they accumulated credit of Service Tax paid on various services and claimed refund of the same treating them as input services required for manufacture of the export goods. The Original Authority disallowed the claims filed on various grounds. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) allowed the appeals filed before him by the respondents except for sustaining denial of credits availed against debit advices in respect of Order-in-Original No.7, 13 and 22/2009. The Commissioner (A) found that the Original Authority had denied the claims filed by the respondents on the ground that the credit, refund of which was claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore - 2009 (239) ELT 92 (Tri.-Bang.) where the Tribunal had held that in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, refund of credit of inputs / input services used in the export goods only could be allowed. It is also submitted that the impugned order did not give any finding on the following aspects based on which also the Original Authority had found certain amounts claimed as not admissible under Rule 5 of CCR. (i) Credits taken on documents addressed to the assessee s Head Office located at Bangalore in respect of which the assessee failed to prove that the services involved were attributable to their unit at Mysore. (ii) Credits taken on documents which are not specified for allowing credit under Rule 9 of CCR. (iii) Credits taken by the assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Rs. 50. Explanation : For the purposes of condition no. 5, - 1. Export turnover shall mean the sum total of the value of final products and output services exported during the given period in respect of which the exporter claims the facility of refund under this rule. 2. Total turnover means the sum total of the value of, - (a) all output services and exempted services provided, including value of services exported; (b) all excisable and non excisable goods cleared, including the value of goods exported; (c) The value of bought out goods sold, during the given period. It is submitted that refund could be claimed of input service credit relatable to goods exported during the period for which the claim is made. As r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 19.1.2010, where, in paragraph 3.3, it was clarified that an exporter could claim refund of credit of input services and credit of inputs applying the formula indicated at Sl. No.5 of the Appendix to the Notification. It is argued that as per this clarification, refund has to be given as per the ratio of export turnover to the total turnover in the period in respect of which the claim is made. As per the clarification, credit could be carried over to subsequent period and the refund will be regulated by the turnover particulars relatable to the period for which the claim is made. It is argued that the impugned order is therefore consistent with the clarification issued by the CBEC. 7. I have carefully considered the case records a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iders exporting 100% of their services, such disputes should not arise and refund of Cenvat credit, irrespective of when he has taken the credit, should be granted if otherwise in order. Such exporters may be asked to file a declaration to the effect that they are exporting 100% of their services, and, only if it is noticed subsequently that the exporter had provided services domestically, the proportional refund to such extent can be demanded from him. There is no dispute that the claims are consistent with the clarification. I also find that in assessee s own case this Tribunal had sustained a similar order of the Commissioner (A) and had followed the reasoning reflected in the above extract of the CBEC Circular. 8. As regards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
