Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2015 (9) TMI 689 - AT - Service Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal upholds appeal, directs refund of Rs. 36,61,517 for unutilized Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and directing the refund sanctioning authority to process the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Tribunal upholds appeal, directs refund of Rs. 36,61,517 for unutilized Cenvat Credit.

                          The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and directing the refund sanctioning authority to process the respondent's refund claim of unutilized Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 36,61,517/- for the period from July 2011 to September 2011 within one month. The Tribunal emphasized the essential nature of the input services for the respondent's business activities in providing exported output services, citing legal precedents and Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit.
                          2. Nexus between input services and exported output services.
                          3. Interpretation of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
                          4. Application of previous judgments and legal precedents.

                          Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Refund of Unutilized Cenvat Credit:
                          The respondent, a provider of taxable services under the categories of Business Support Service and Management, Maintenance & Repair Service, claimed a refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 36,61,517/- for the period from July 2011 to September 2011. This claim was made under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/3/2006. The ground for the claim was that the output services provided during the relevant period were exported, and the respondent could not utilize the Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on the input services used for providing such output services.

                          2. Nexus Between Input Services and Exported Output Services:
                          The initial rejection of the refund claim by the lower adjudicating authority was based on the respondent's failure to demonstrate that the input services, for which the refund was claimed, were actually consumed in the provision of the exported output services. The Revenue argued that the respondent did not establish a direct nexus between the input services and the export services, thereby making the refund claim improper and illegal.

                          3. Interpretation of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
                          The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the case in detail and concluded that all the services listed by the respondent fell within the definition of input services under Rule 2(l)(i) and were used for providing output services, which had been exported. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing that the services used by the respondent were essential for their business activities in providing output services.

                          4. Application of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents:
                          The respondent cited a previous judgment in their own case (Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai-II [2014-TIOL-2289-CESTAT-MUM]) where the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal in the present case found that the ratio of the previous judgment was directly applicable. It was noted that there could not be two yardsticks: one for allowing the input credit and another for granting the refund of the credit taken. The Tribunal referenced several cases (e.g., Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi vs. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd., CCE, Tirunelveli V/s. DCW Ltd., and others) to support the view that the credit taken should be eligible for refund without questioning the credit itself.

                          Judgment:
                          The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), finding it to be correct and legal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, reinforcing that the services used by the respondent were indeed input services essential for their business activities in providing exported output services. The Tribunal directed the refund sanctioning authority to dispose of the refund claims within one month from the date of receipt of the order, emphasizing the principle that there should not be different yardsticks for taking credit and for refunding the credit. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the legal precedents and the interpretation of the relevant rules and notifications.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found