9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jain, DR ORDER Per: G. Raghuram: The appellant is an Indian corporate entity. For the quarter January 2010 to March 2010, appellant applied for refund, lying in its account, of Rs. 23,74,027/-, claiming to have utilised various input services for providing an output business support service, which was exported by the appellant to an overseas entity. The claim was presented under Rule 5 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and concurred with the primary Authority and concluded that services provided by the appellant were not used outside India. 4. The appellant entered into service agreements with its overseas associated enterprise M/s Centrica Plc to assists in managing partnership with suppliers in India and for facilitating efficient interface; to ensure that suppliers follow best practices andshare such best ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia, undisputedly. 6. The basis recorded by the learned appellate Commissioner for rejecting the claim for refund is predicated on the conclusion that the service provided by the assessee was not used outside India. Reliance for this is placed in the impugned order on the Board Circular dated 13.05.2011 which purports to clarify the expression accrual of benefit and use outside India. 7. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entity and is therefore to be considered as having been used outside India and for the benefit of the overseas entity.
9. On the aforesaid analyses the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the lower appellate Authority is set aside and it is declared that the appellant shall be entitled to refund of unutilised cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 13,88,262/-. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
