9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. SPIL and M/s. SPARC for manufacture of final product under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2017-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 issued thereunder. 2. Shri A.B Nawal, Learned Cost Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant at the outset submits that the very same issue in the appellant's own case has been settled by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/10247-10248/2020 dated 24.01.2020, therefore, on the basis of said decision the appeal deserves to be set aside. 3. Shri Rajesh Nathan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of any service but was exported as such, and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of the said amount. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant is registered with Service Tax under the category of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service provider. Learned counsel argued that Cenvat Credit of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service used for providing same service cannot be denied. He placed reliance on this tribunal decision in MERCEDES BENZ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INDIA PVT LTD VS C.S.T. BANGALORE 2017 (49) S.T.R. 227 (TRI.BANG). He also relied on decision of tribunal in case of FINOLEX CABLES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GOA 2007 (210) E.L.T. 76 where it was held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, they cannot avail the said credit of service tax paid by SPIL & SPARC. It has been argued that the service received from SPIL & SPARC has been directly supplied to SPGI without use by the appellant. The revenue has relied on the definition of input service which requires use of the input service by the appellant before credit is availed. 8. On the first principle it is seen that the services has been exported by the appellant and logically there should not be any tax liability on such exports even on the first principle any tax paid on development of such service should be refunded to the appellants. Availability of credit is also a kind of refund. 9. A perusal of the agreement of the appellant with SPIL shows that it gives the Ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SPIL was not used by the appellant. The revenue's argument is that the entire service was provided on the date of invoice is totally fallacious and illogical. Thus, we hold that the appellants received and consumed the service while they were participating in the development of technology by supervising and monitoring the same. 11. In view of above we do not find any merit in the argument of the revenue that the services provided by SPIL was not used by the appellant and were exported as such. We find that the agreement in respect of SPARC is also the same and, therefore, the arguments above are equally applicable to the services provided by SPARC. 12. In view of above we do not find any merit in the arguments of the revenue that ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
