TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd No. 91/2014(H-IV)ST dt. 25/03/2014. 2. Heard both sides and perused records. 3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant is registered with the authorities for provision of software related services for design, development and testing for enhancement and improvement of their group's existing products and new products; they are registered under Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) and Business Auxiliary Services (BAS); all the services provided by the appellant are exported outside India and qualified as export under the Export of Service Rules, 2005; they availed CENVAT credit of various input services which were used for provision of output services and the CENVAT credit wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmissions by 26/05/2017. The appellants filed the written submissions but the Revenue authorities have not filed any written submissions till 31/05/2017. 6. It is seen that the refund claim of the CENVAT credit of the services paid on the following services is sought to be denied by the lower authorities:- i. Business Auxiliary Service ii. Convention Centre Service iii. Management, Maintenance or Repair Service iv. Chartered Accountant Service v. Event Management Service vi. Rent-a-Cab Operator Service vii. Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service viii. Renting of Immovable Property Service ix. Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service x. Sale of space or time for advertisem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rendered output services in form of ITSS and BAS which are exported. Further I find that similar issues cropped up before various Tribunal's and the recent decisions, the Mumbai Bench in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, LTU, Mum [2016 (45) STR 383 (Tri. Mum.)], the Bangalore Bench in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motors P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, LTU, Bangalore [2017(47) STR 106 (Tri. Bang.)] and the Delhi Bench in the case of Delta Energy Systems Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-III [2013(31) STR 684 (Tri. Del.)], the Bombay Bench in the case of Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai-II [2015(40) STR 719 (Tri. Mum.)], allowed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on accommodation services procured for their employees; and in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rajasthan High Court succinctly in the case of J.K. Cement Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 4 vide Para 33 : "A close reading of Section 11BB, which now governs the question relating to payment of interest on belated payment of interest, makes it clear that relevant date for the purpose of determining the liability to pay interest is not the determination under subsection (2) of Section 11B to refund the amount to the applicant and not to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund but the relevant date is to be determined with reference to date of application laying claim to refund. The non-payment of refund to the applicant claimant within three months from the date of such app....