9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of Banking and Other Finance Services specified under sub-clause (zm) of clause 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. They filed a refund claim of Rs. 46,04,719/- on the unutilized service tax credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 14-3-2006, Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim vide the Order-in-Original on the ground that the input services are used in providing taxable and non-taxable services, which cannot be ascertained and the entire export proceeds has to be taken as software. Aggrieved by such an order, appellants herein preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the grounds of appeal and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal paper book which is ST-3 Return for the period April to September, 2006. It is his submission that they have claimed the refund of the Cenvat Credit taken on the services utilized by them for discharge of Banking and Other Financial Services. It is his submission that subsequent to the year 2008, the very same Adjudicating Authority had allowed the refund claims, as the entire services rendered by them now falls under the category of taxable services. It is his submission that during the relevant period there was a situation as to classification of the services rendered by the assessee were falling under taxable, non-taxable and exempted services. He would draw our attention to the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Chartered Accountant submitted that the show-cause notice only talks about rejection of the refund claim only on the reasons which have been mentioned in para 5, which if read would indicate, that the assessee has not produced the documents. It is his submission that the said documents were produced and the Adjudicating Authority has only rejected the refund claims for not providing the breakup of the values for the services rendered which they had produced before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for the refund of the service tax credit taken on the input services utilized by him for the export of services. 8.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so, I hold that the lower authority has rightly rejected the claim. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the original order......" 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that the Chartered Accountant's statements and certificate were accepted by the first appellate authority as it is giving the breakup of IT and ITeS services but it is not exhaustive. We find that both the lower authorities could have called for the further explanation from the assessee before rejecting the appeal on this ground. We find from the statements produced by the ld. Chartered Accountant that they are able to provide explanation and identify input services that has gone into services which were exported. Since the issue involved in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
