2017 (7) TMI 760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d was engaged in the business of providing various value added off shore BPO Solution services to their customers abroad. The services provided by the appellant qualified as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. During the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009, the appellant availed Cenvat Credit. The credit remained unutilized as the services were exported without payment of Service Tax. On 06.08.2009 the appellant filed refund claim for refund of Rs. 9,72,19,551/- under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said refund application was decided by Assistant Commissioner through Order-in-Original dated 26.02.2010 wherein the Original Authority allowed the refund of Rs. 1,90,89,899/- and rejected the claim or Rs. 7,65,4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....012/- and disallowed the refund of Rs. 1,19,18,476/-. In respect of the refund of Rs. 14,46,652/- the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the said credit has been correctly denied on the proportionate basis since the appellant was admittedly not maintaining separate records for the common input services since they were also providing exempted services prior to 15.05.2008. In respect of the balance amount, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the Adjudicating Authority had denied the credit and refund on the issue of tour arrangement, incidental expenses, hotel expenses etc. holding that they do not qualify the definition of input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The appellant contested the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taxable output services the appellant was eligible to take full credit though at the state of providing output services the requirement to pay 6% of the value may arise but that is not case of the Department and also relied on ruling by Hon'ble Karnataka in the case of MPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s CST, Bangalore reported at 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.). 4. The learned AR has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal on record we find that in the present case no such show cause notice issued to the appellant for denial of Cenvat Credit availed under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was brought to our notice by Revenue for denial of Cenvat Credit availed during the pe....