2015 (6) TMI 1030

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eals, the issue involved is the eligibility of the appellant for refund of Cenvat credit accumulated and claimed under Notification No. 5/2006 issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The first ground based on which refund has been rejected is that the Information Technology Software Service (ITSS) was not liable to tax. It was submitted that this claim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore registration, credit can be taken. 5. The third ground on which the claim has been rejected is that there has been no co-relation between export invoices and FIRC. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellant has not furnished details of all the exports in respect of which the particular FIRC pertains. The amount shown in the FIRC is more than the export invoices in r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rrect or there was a substantial difference, refund claim cannot be rejected. For the purpose of consideration of refund claim, the relevant documents on the basis of which credit was taken, nature of service and its nexus and utilization of the service for rendering output service are relevant and merely because there was some mistake in the ST-3 returns, substantive right of assessee for refund ....