2016 (12) TMI 1524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nabled Services. The present dispute is regarding the rejection of refund claim filed for Rs. 3,06,51,324/- (Rupees Three Crores Six Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Four only) for refund of unutilized cenvat credit of service tax, as per Notification No. 5/2006-CE (N.T) dated 14.03.2006, on the input services availed by them for export of services. The claim pertains to the export carried out in September 2007 and stands filed on 03.06.2008. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority vide his order dated 15.10.2008. When the matter was carried in appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order upheld the same. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The refund stands rejected by the author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied this aspect. Further, retrospective amendment carried out in Finance Act 2010 and Notification 7/2010-CE (N.T) amending Notification No. 5/2006-CE (N.T), retrospectively has made it clear that as long as input services are used for providing output services which have been exported, refund of the same will be allowable. iii) The appellant has placed reliance on the Final Order No. 20824-20834/2015 dated 23.03.2015 passed by this Bench in the matter of Sai Advantium Pharma Ltd. and Apotex Research reported at 2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-BANG. 4. Heard Mr. L.S. Karthikeyan, learned advocate for the appellant as well as Mrs. Ezhil Mathi, learned DR appearing for the Revenue. 5. The first ground in which the refund stands rejected is that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terly/monthly basis. It is clearly in the nature of an option given to the assessee to file refund claims on a quarterly or monthly basis and failure to do so cannot be a ground for rejection of the refund claim. 5.2. The present refund claim relates to the export of services during the month of September 2007. It is also a fact on record that the cenvat credits which are utilized for such export in September 2007 have been availed during the months of April 2006 to March 2007. The lower authorities have taken the view that input services availed during April 2006 to March 2007 are not relatable to the services exported in September 2007. This situation has arisen from the fact that the credit of input services has not been taken during th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated, the conditions in Rule 5 can be said to have been fulfilled. It cannot be said that the input service has not been used for providing output service. The only question is that the credit was taken subsequently and therefore it had already been used when credit was taken. There is also a Board s instruction saying that the CENVAT credit taken forms a pool and can be used for any purpose once credit is admissible. Moreover the reliance of the learned counsel on Circular No. 120/01/2010 dt. 19/01/2010 to submit that there cannot be different yardsticks for establishing nexus for taking credit and refund of credit is correct. Moreover as submitted, Notification No. 7/2010 amended Notification No. 5/2006 that retrospective effect from 14/0....