2014 (12) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ptember 2008 and four appeals filed by Revenue against sanctioning of refund claims amounting to Rs. 3,01,62,781/- for the period November 2007 to March 2009. The details of the appeals filed and the orders against which they are filed, the period involved, the amount of refund involved are given in the table below: Sl.No. Appeal No. Order-in-Appeal No. Period of Refund claim Amount (Rs) 1 ST/85276/2014 438 to 444/BPS/MUM/2013 dated 14/10/2013        January 2008 to March 2008 22,08,253/- 2 ST/85275/2014 December 2007 25,38,313/- 3 ST/85277/2014 April 2008 to June 2008 12,08,128/- 4 ST/85278/2014 July 2008 to September 2008 43,40,291/- 5 ST/85344/2014 November 2007 75,24,552/- 6 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nputs or input service used 'in' providing output service which is exported without payment of tax. The use of the expression "in" is restrictive and, therefore, the assessee-respondent is not entitled for refund of various input services on which credit has been taken, such as travel agent service, consultancy service, repairs and maintenance services, car rentals, renting of immovable properties, etc. which are used "for" rendering of output service. The learned counsel for the assessee points out that the said notification has been retrospectively amended vide Section 74 of the Finance Act, 2010 wherein the word "in" has been substituted by the word "for". Therefore, this objection no longer remains. The learned counsel also poin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for". The expression "for" implies 'for the purposes of' as held by the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce [AIR 1976 SC 348] of output service, refund of input service credit would be available. In any case, the department has not objected to the assessee-respondent taking the credit at the relevant time and the objection has been raised only at the time of filing of the refund claims. This Tribunal, in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi vs. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (16) STR 198 (Tri-Del.) had taken the view that there cannot be two yardsticks, one for allowing the input credit and another for refund of the credit taken. The Tribunal observed in the said case that there cannot be two d....