TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of input services used for embroidery software development exported outside India.
Analysis: The appellant had exported the services and had not claimed refund twice. Prior refund orders for earlier periods on the same activity had been accepted by the Revenue. The credit had also not been disputed at the stage of availment on the ground that the input services were not used for provision of the export activity. In such circumstances, the Revenue could not challenge the same input credit while processing refund under Rule 5. The objection that the activity was shown differently in the refund papers did not defeat the substantive entitlement where export and use of input services stood established.
Conclusion: The refund claim was held allowable and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The decision confirms that, where export of service and utilisation of input services are undisputed and credit was not questioned at the stage of availment, refund under the Cenvat credit refund scheme cannot be denied on the later objection that the exported activity was described differently.
Ratio Decidendi: Credit validly availed for input services used in exported output activity cannot be denied at the refund stage under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the export and non-duplication of refund are undisputed.
TaxTMI 
