2015 (4) TMI 576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Unit (STP Unit) engaged in the business of processing, contracting, developing and exporting Business Support Services. All the clients to whom the appellant provides such services are located in foreign countries and none of the appellant s client is in India. It was his case that appellant is covered under the export of Service Rules, 2005 and is not required to pay any service tax. That appellant has taken registration under Business Support Services for availing Cenvat Credit of services availed by the appellant so that refund of such service tax credit is taken under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. That appellant is taking credit of services like Telephone Services, Tours Travels Services, Banking Services, Consultancies Serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se charge basis under Section 66A of the Finance Act 1994 was admissible to the appellant as credit and further by way of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and appellant was already availing such refund facility for other services received from abroad directly in India. It was therefore, the case of the appellant that in addition to being Revenue neutral, the appeal filed by the appellant is also required to be allowed on limitations. 5. Sh. K. Shivkumar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Revenue neutrality has to be seen on case to case basis as held by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 17 of the OIA dated 19.9.2011. On the time bar aspect Learned AR relied upon the following case laws:- (a) Dharampal S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on perusal of the order it is seen that the respondents contested the demand of duty before the Commissioner (Appeals) on excisability of the goods as well as revenue neutrality. We find that the respondents used tobacco essence in captive consumption within their factory. In this connection, the learned advocate on behalf of the respondents placed the decision of the Tribunal in their own case vide Final order No. 533/2008 Ex. dated 15-7-2004 [M/s. S.R. Fragrance Ltd. (now Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.) v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 877 (T)] wherein the Tribunal set aside the demand of duty on identical issue on the ground of revenue neutrality. The relevant portion of the said decision of the Tribunal is reproduced below : 2. Afte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Credit the same would have been admissible as refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. It is Revenue neutral situation, therefore, demands are not sustainable on merits in view of the settled proposition of law. 8. Appellant had also argued that demand is time bar as the period is from the financial year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 whereas the Show Cause Notice is issued on 09.06.2009. Learned AR has relied upon the judgements passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise New Delhi (Supra) and Commissioner of Central excise Mumbai Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra (P) Ltd. (Supra). It is observed from the facts of the case in Dharampal Satyapal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise New Delhi (S....