TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were exporting the products, they could not utilize the input credit taken by them and, accordingly, preferred a refund claim for a sum of Rs. 9,19,798/- on 23.05.2007 under Rule 5 of CENVANT Credit Rules 2004. The refund related to service tax paid on GTA services on inputs used in goods exported during the period April 2006 to March 2007. The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the exported products manufactured by them are exempted goods. The matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 18.03.2008, accepting the contention of the appellant allowed the appeal following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ANZ International Ltd. Final Order 1305-1306/2007 dated 14.11.2007. 3.2. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejected in the second round of litigation are not valid. It is claimed that merely because the credit has been taken by the appellant before making actual payment to the service provider, the same cannot be held ineligible. It is not the case of the department that no payment was made to the service provider. A sum of Rs. 75,685/- stands denied holding that services such as chartered accountant services, telephone services and recruitment services used in connection with functioning of the 100% EOU are not 'input services' in relation to export products is not valid in the light of decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369. She particularly relies on paragraphs 33 and 34....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered by them and the same requires to be fulfilled. c) He reiterates the finding of the original authority and that of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of rejection of refund relating to Rs. 75,685/- treating the said activities as not 'input services'. d) Regarding rejection of Rs. 12,078/-, he reiterates the findings of the original authority. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The original authority vide order dated 26.11.2008 considered the refund claim in denovo proceedings in pursuance of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18.03.2008. The said order undisputedly has not been challenged by the department. However, it is noticed that the order of the Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the service charges to the service provider. However, as a 100% EOU, even though they have taken the credit, they were not in a position to utilize the same and that they have not availed any benefit in as much as the claim is yet to be sanctioned. Therefore, I hold that they are eligible for this refund subject only to the condition that the appellants produce evidence to the effect that they have subsequently made payments in respect of services on which credit has been taken. 10. Regarding the denial of refund relating to Rs. 75,685/-, I find that the definition of 'input services' is wide enough and the activities relating to business should necessarily include activities of maintenance of accounts and auditing of accounts of ....