2010 (7) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n relation to development and export of software. The period of dispute is the Financial Year 2006-2007. Vide OIO No. 47/2008 dated 30.05.2008, the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Division-III, Bangalore, rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant. He found that the appellant was engaged in software development, which was not a taxable service. The assessee was not eligible for taking Cenvat credit as per Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It appeared that it had received input services such as telephone services, security, consultancy, software development, manpower supply and recruitment. But the assessee had not furnished particulars of services utilised. He rejected the refund claim also on the ground that the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of duty and the refund if any due, would be subject to the time limit prescribed for claim of refund. There cannot be any time limit for claiming refund of accumulated cenvat credit. This was also the ratio of the following judicial authorities:- (i) Swagat Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2007 (220) ELT 949(Tribunal) (ii) Gilloram Gaurishankar Vs. CCE, 2007 (213) ELT 528(Tribunal) It was also submitted that substantial benefit of cenvat credit could not be denied on a technical ground of the assessee being not registered with the Department. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in BSNL Vs. CCE, 2008-TIOL-1989(T). 4. Heard both sides. 5. I have carefully perused the case records and studied the submissions by both s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... allow STP units like the appellants Cenvat credit of duty/ service tax paid on inputs/input services. This benefit is apparently not limited by provisions of the CCR. This plea was, however, not taken by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to take credit of service tax paid on input services. (ii) Another ground on which the claim is rejected is that the same is barred by limitation. I find that the 'relevant date' specified in Section 11B of the Act does not mention anything as regards refund of cenvat credit. Therefore, the limitation u/s 11B does not apply for refund of accumulated cenvat credit. (iii) A major reason to reject the claim is that the appellant is not registered with the department. I find th....