9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 6-7-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri G. Shivdass, Advocate - For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appeal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant being a 100% EOU engaged in providing services of software development. The appellants have filed a refund claim on 3.7.2007 for ₹ 49,78,575/- for the period 04/2006 to 03/2007 under Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006-CE (NT) for unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid by them on input services. The lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 does not mention exemption as the criteria for determining whether refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 can be applied for exported services or not. He also submitted that the department has wrongly placed reliance under Rule 2(e) of CCR, 2004 for denying the refund on the ground that the services rendered by the appellant are exempted service. He also submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been decided in favour of the appellant by series of decisions passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Repro India Ltd. Vs. UOI: 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom) Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner: 2010 (17) STR 540 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellant are software development services which was an exempted service in terms of Rule 2(e) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that as per Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004, appellant was not eligible to take credit on the input service used in the manufacture of exempted products or in providing exempted services. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the judgments relied upon by the appellant, I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions cited supra. Further, I also find that in the case of KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd cited supra , the Division Bench of this Tribunal in para 5.6 has held as under: 5.6. The appellant mPo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
