TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... January 2009 to March 2009 amounting to Rs. 18,58,858/-, Rs. 31,25,495/- and Rs. 25,63,429/-respectively were disposed of and no amount was sanctioned. Refund claims were filed in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006. 2. The appellant is registered under the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) Scheme. In the Software Export Declaration form, it described the nature of services as "Software Development". In an elaborate discussion about classification of the services exported, the primary adjudicating authority came to a finding that- (i) while maintenance or repair of computer software under Annual Maintenance Contract or otherwise, was taxable under " Management,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not be adjusted against the dues which had not been determined quasi-judicially and that there had been no show cause notice as to why the so-called wrongly added cenvat credit balance of Rs. 68,27,559/- should not be denied and recovered. Indeed, no action has been initiated even for recovery of Rs. 11,68,565/- which remained as balance after adjusting the refund of Rs. 56,58,994/- although the primary adjudicating authority in para 16.5 of the adjudication order noted as under: "However, even after such deduction, an amount of Rs. 11,68,565/- is still payable by the applicant for which separate proceedings may be initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (Division - Gurgaon) as the same cannot be done in the present refund proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 7C of the Rules, the revised return cannot be ignored simply on the ground that the same has been filed after a period provided under Rule 7B of the Rules. In these circumstances, we find that the matter requires re-consideration by the adjudicating authority in view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules. The impugned order is set aside, after waiving pre-deposit of the amount of service tax, interest and penalty and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after offering an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Thus, the mistake in ST-3 return was a rectifiable mistake which was indeed rectified by filing revised ST-3 return and as has been held in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant has shown all the past eligible credits not shown in earlier returns in the opening balance in the service tax return for the period October March 2009. Also the appellant was maintaining the Cenvat Credit register during the period April - September 2008. In view of the said inadvertent errors, the appellant has revised its service tax return for the period April 2008 - September 2008 and filed the same on 13 July 2010 in the Gurgaon division. This revised return correctly mentioned that the appellant had a closing balance of Rs. 68,27,559/- as on September 2008. Thus the Commissioner (Appeal) has himself noted that not showing balance of cenvat credit in the ST-3 return was inadvertent error and the revised return submitted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne 2008, October 2008 to December 2008 & January 2009 to March 2009. However, an amount of Rs. 68,27,559/- which has been wrongly added by them to their Cenvat credit account is ordered to be deducted so as to correctly reflect the CENVAT availed utilized and carried forward in subsequent returns. (emphasis added) It is event from the above-quoted paras that the adjudicating authority has come to a clear finding that for the quarters October 2008 to December 2008 and January 2009 to March 2009, Rs. 56,58,994/- is the amount of refund of unitilised Cenvat credit admissible to the appellant. As regard the refund for the quarter April 2008 to June 2008, in view of the fact that Cenvat credit account had balance and a revised ST-3 return was....