2012 (12) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claim amounting to Rs.42,76,215/- and Rs.29,90,199/- pertaining to their two units, namely, Unit no. 1 & Unit no. 2 at Nashik. The claims were rejected on the ground that a part of the amount on which CENVAT credit was taken was distributed by their Head Office as inputs service distributor and at the relevant time the Head Office was not registered as an input service distributor and, therefore, they could not have distributed the input service tax credit. The other part of the refund claim was rejected on 'directly availed services' on the ground that the service provided by the telecom service providers who leased the telecommunication lines to the appellant and charging service tax on the same, is not an eligible input service. There i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, they have received payments in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, they have completed the export transaction. In view of the above, they are rightly entitled for the refund claim. 4. The Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6. As regards the denial of refund claim of the service tax paid on leased telecom lines, the appellants are rightly entitled for Service tax credit and refund thereon for the reason that the exports are undertaken electronically and to undertake this export they need dedicated lines from their office premises to the telecom authorities, who will receive the data for transmitting the same abroad. Without these....