9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted facts are that the appellant is a 100% EOU registered under the STPI scheme and during the relevant period, pursuant to the agreement entered into with the overseas companies viz. M/s. Texas Instruments Inc., USA and M/s. Texas Instruments, Singapore, they have exported software services and rendered services to the overseas companies. Since there was no clearance to the domestic market and entire services were exported, the appellant had filed cash refund claims of accumulated cenvat credit of Rs.14,06,03,251/- on quarterly basis during the period April 2007 to May 2008. Under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Initially the said refund claims were rejected on the ground that the output services provided by them became taxable only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the services received from M/s. Texas Instruments Inc., USA viz. Management of Business Consultancy Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service, Information Technology Software Service (ITSS) (June 2008 onwards), Management Consultancy Service (June 2008 onwards) and availed cenvat credit amounting to Rs.14,06,03,251/-. Alleging that the output services provided by the appellant viz. ITSS till 15.05.2008 are not eligible for availing credit in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules, show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 09.09.2009 for recovery of the said credit amount of Rs.14,06,03,251/- along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax on input services, which they availed cenvat credit. 3.2. She has submitted that during the period April 2007 to May 2008, the appellant had filed four refund claims for the quarters April to June 2007, July 2007 to December 2007, January 2008 to March 2008 and April 2008 to May 2008 for claiming the accumulated cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said refund claims were rejected by the Department solely on the ground that the credit availed the appellant is ineligible as the output services provided by the appellant was not taxable prior to 16.05.2008. Aggrieved by the said rejection of refund claims, the appellant approached this Tribunal and by Final order No.21794-21798/2014 dated 26.09.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctioned to the appellant and the issue of eligibility of credit has already been put to test; therefore the credit of Rs.14,06,03,251/- is admissible and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, in support of her contention, she has referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the following cases:- i. Kyocera Wireless Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2014(9) TMI 1036 - CESTAT BANGALORE] ii. Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2017(3) GSTL 401 (Tri. Bang.)] iii. Novarties Healthcare Private Limited Vs. CCGST&CE [2023(9) TMI 455 - CESTAT Mumbai] iv. Wipro Technologies Vs. CST [2020(9) TMI938-CESTAT Bangalore] v. KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I [2013(7) TMI 124 - CESTAT Mumba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
