2016 (6) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refund of service tax paid on various input services. 2.  The appellants are engaged in providing taxable services under the category 'Information Technology Software Services' which are exported.  The appellant is an EOU registered under STPI scheme.  They filed a refund claim for the period April 2009 to June 2009 for an ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pheld the rejection of refund and dismissed the appeal.  Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 4.  I have heard the submissions made by either side.  At the outset, it has to be stated that the period involved is prior to 01/04/2011, when the definition of input services had a wider ambit as it included the words 'activities relating to business'.  The vario....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s'. 6.  In the appellant's own case for different period, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/30065/2016 dated 20/01/2016 and Final Order No.A/30160/2016 dated 04/02/2016 has allowed refund in respect of the above services.  Further the issue is settled in the cases of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd.  Vs. CCE, Pune [2009(242) ELT 168 (Bom.)] and CCE Vs. HCL Technologies [(2014) 52 Taxma....