9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said demand, on conclusion of the proceeding, the appellant filed refund claim for Rs.4,81,43,943/-, which was rejected on the ground of pendency of the present appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant filed appeal against the said order of rejection of refund and it is now pending before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) as stated by the learned advocate for the appellant. Since the amount of cenvat credit availed and later reversed by the appellant on 31.08.2010, is also claimed as refund pursuant to the de novo order, the present appeal becomes infructuous. Appeal disposed off. - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Ravi Raghavan, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. M.A. Jithendra, Asst. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gn companies under the above mentioned agreements have not licensed the appellant any patent, copyright, design or any other similar intellectual property rights. In consideration of the said license during the period 01.01.2003 to 10.09.2004, the appellant had paid Rs.71,46,88,666/- as technical know-how fees as royalty to the foreign companies. Correspondences were exchanged with the Department about the liability of service tax on the amount of technical know-how and royalty paid to the foreign companies during the said period. Later they have remitted the service tax on the said services and intimated to the Department on 10.04.2008. Later, they took credit of the service tax paid by them. 3.2. He has further submitted that a show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertains to disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs.4,81,43,943/- which the appellant have reversed on 31.08.2010 under protest and intimated to the Department vide letter dated 01.10.2010. He has submitted that since refund of the service tax paid was rejected on the ground that the appeal is pending before this tribunal and the amount of credit confirmed by the adjudicating is one and the same, the matter may be remanded to the learned adjudicating authority to consider the application for refund as the present appeal becomes infructuous. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the appellant after discharging service tax for the period 01.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
