9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants 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 Services’ for which they are already registered - Therefore, denial of refund of Cenvat credit is not justified. The other ground on which refund of Cenvat credit of ₹ 20,600/- is rejected because the invoice issued by BSNL is not in conformity with Rule 4A and Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is also not justified - This rejection is not justified as the invoice contained all the details except the Service Tax Registration number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case are that the appellant has entered into agreement with the company named M/s. Tregaron India Holdings located in USA. As per the agreement the appellants are required to develop software solutions on an ongoing basis as per the requirement of Tregaron. The copy of the agreement is also filed by the appellant. It has further been stated that all the services are exported out of India and the consideration is received in foreign currency. The appellants are registered with the Department under the category of Information Technology Software Service and for providing services which are exported, the appellants utilized various input services and availed Cenvat credit on those input services. The appellant under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The only question which needs to be decided by me in all these three appeals is whether the rejection of refund claim by the authorities below mainly on the ground that the appellants were not registered under Business Support Services for the BPO activity and whether the refund claim for ₹ 20,600/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Six Hundred only) pertaining to the bill issued by the BSNL is in conformity with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is legally justified or not? It is pertinent to note that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that the appellant is an EOU and they are eligible fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent which would fall in the category of Information Technology Services for which they are already registered. Therefore, in my considered view denial of refund of Cenvat credit is not justified. Secondly the other ground on which refund of Cenvat credit of ₹ 20,600/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Six Hundred only) relating to invoice issued by BSNL is rejected because the invoice issued by BSNL is not in conformity with Rule 4A and Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is also not justified. This rejection is not justified as the invoice contained all the details except the Service Tax Registration number of BSNL is not mentioned which according to me is only an inadvertent error as the Service Tax Registration number is mentioned in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
