9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 one-to-one correlation is not required to be established. Further, the appellant has given detailed reasons explaining the nexus between the input service and the output service exported by the appellant. Moreover, the department has not questioned the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant at the initial stage and the same cannot be questioned at the time of claiming of refund. Since all the input services involved in the present cases except those four services viz., Business Support Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service, Recovery for Gym and supply of tangible goods have been held to be input services by various decisions, the appellant is entitled to refund of CENVAT credit on all these input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 2016 7,74,155 8 ST/20397/2020 Apr. 2016 to Jun. 2016 1,86,229 9 ST/20398/2020 Jan. 2017 to Mar. 2017 7,84,566 Total 37,66,671 3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered under the Service Tax for providing Information Technology Software Services. They had filed nine refund claims for various quarters claiming refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax availed on the input services for providing output service said to have been exported during the relevant period as shown in the table above. The claims were filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. After following the due process, original authority has partially allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 wherein the department has clarified that the new scheme for claiming refund does not require the kind of correlation that is noted at present between the exports and the input services used in such export services. Duties or taxes paid on any goods or service that qualifies as input or input services will be entitled to be refunded in the ratio of export turnover to total turnover. Learned counsel has given the reference case laws for each of the service, where the Tribunal has held the same as input service. Input Service Case Laws * Event Management Service * Sponsorship Service * Management, Maintenance and Repair * Supply of Tangible goods * Business Support Service * Photography Service * Moneygram India Pvt. Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012, the TRU vide letter D.O.F. No.334/1/2012-TRU dated 16.3.2012 has clarified the refund procedure and has done away with the nexus test. 5.3 The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the appellant is entitled for grant of interest on delayed processing of refund claim beyond the period of three months from making such an application and in this respect, he relied upon the decisions rendered in the following cases: * Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI: 2011-TIOL-105-SC * Xerox Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise: 2019-TIOL-508-HC-Kerala * M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2014-TIOL-1486-CESTAT-Ahmedabad * UOI vs. M/s. Hamdard (Waqf) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 16.3.2012, is not required to be established. Further, I find that in the impugned order, Commissioner (A) has wrongly relied upon the old circular of 2010 whereas the definition of 'input service' has been amended with effect from 1.4.2011 and vide Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 one-to-one correlation is not required to be established. Further, the appellant has given detailed reasons explaining the nexus between the input service and the output service exported by the appellant. Moreover, the department has not questioned the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant at the initial stage and as per the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra the same cannot be questioned at the time of claiming of ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the Court, then for the purpose of this Section the order made by such higher Appellate Authority or by the Court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
