9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice. Therefore, they are not eligible for Cenvat Credit on scientific and technical consultancy services. The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the appellant s own case UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-II [ 2023 (12) TMI 1324 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that ' it cannot be correct to say that the service provided by the 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.' Accordingly, following the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was noticed that the appellant have wrongly availed and utilized the cenvat of Service Tax on scientific and technical consultancy services for payment of Service Tax on non taxable service i.e. Sale of technology. It was also observed that the appellant does not have the facility of R D and simply traded the technology or IPR developed on the basis of scientific technical consultancy which is input service provided by M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) and M/s Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company Limited (SPARC). Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 06/04/2016 was issued proposing denial of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.4,94,14,277/- along with the demand of interest and penalty. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to be recovered in terms of Rule, 14 on the ground that since the appellant have carried out the trading of technology, hence, not provided any output service. Therefore, they are not eligible for Cenvat Credit on scientific and technical consultancy services . The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the appellant s own case as cited supra. One of the Order No. 12764-12769/2023 dated 15.12.2023 is extracted below : The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitled for refund on export of scientific and consultancy service received from M/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 18.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of various pharmaceuticals products and sold/transferred such technology to the appellant under five different invoices after payment of Service Tax thereon under the head of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service. The appellant availed the Service Tax Credit of this service tax paid by SPIL SPARC. The appellant exported the said service on the same day on which they had availed the credit of the service received from SPIL SPARC. 3. The revenue argued that the service received from SPIL SPARC was never used by the appellant for manufacture of any goods or for provision 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 appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that the appellants M/s. Unimed Technologies Limited entered into a contract with M/s. Sun Pharma Global Inc., (SPGI) for supply of certain technology/Knowhow. The appellant sub-contracted the generation of this technology/Knowhow to SPIL SPARC. SPIL SPARC produced the said technology/Knowhow and supplied the same to the appellant who in turn further supplied the same to SPGI on the same day when they took credit on invoice of SPIL/SPARC. The entire case of revenue is that the appellant have not used the service provided by SPIL SPARC and, therefore, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e service. 10. The only fact that revenue has used to insist that the service was provided to the appellant and exported by the appellant on the same day is that the date of invoice is common. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the service was not provided in one day, the service was provided in a particular time duration and the service provided was beingsimultaneously used by the appellant by Supervising and Monitoring the activity in the entire duration. Thus, it cannot be correct to say that the service provided by the 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 con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
