9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order-in-Appeal is also common, therefore all the three appeals are disposed of by this order. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals of the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellants are only registered under the taxable category of Information Technology Service and are not eligible for refund in respect of BPO services for which they are not registered. Secondly the refund of credit of Rs. 20,600/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Six Hundred only) was rejected as the same was not found in conformity with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant has entered into agreement with the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al position and same deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellants are provider of output taxable service and they have already been registered under the taxable category of 'Information Technology Service' w.e.f. 19-9-2008 and further that they are not exporting BPO services. He also submitted that the rejection of refund with regard to invoice issued by the BSNL on the ground that it does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is also wrong and illegal. On the other hand learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is not registered under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' is not sustainable and refund is to be allowed. Similarly in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2010-TIOL-1639-CESTAT-AHM = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 246 (Tribunal) has also held that service provider was registered under different category cannot be made a basis for denial of refund claim. Further I also find that the appellants are into the business of IT and IT Enabled services and are not engaged in the business of Call centres, telecasters and customer care service, etc. They only provided technical online services based on the requirement of their client which would fall in the category of 'Information Technology Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
