2017 (12) TMI 1496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... allowed the appeal of the appellant with certain directions. The Commissioner (A) has decided the appeals on principle and directed the lower authorities for quantification and verification of documents and then allow the refund. 2. Since the issue in all these appeals is identical, therefore, all the appeals are disposed of by this common order. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the service tax department and is engaged in export of software development services. Appellant had filed refund claims seeking refund of unutilized CENVAT credit paid on various input services used for services exported by them during the impugned period under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notificatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oon Stage setting, putting up stall, etc.); Management, Maintenance or Repair Service (Vendor expense, reimbursement of pay roll cost, performance fee, etc.); Management, Maintenance or Repair Service (Vendor expense, reimbursement of pay roll cost, performance fee, etc.); Renting of immovable property service (rent paid for car parking area and cafeteria); Telecommunication Service (Service Tax amount not forthcoming in invoice) and Commercial Coaching and Training (Travel and Accommodation stay cost of trainer) do not fall in the definition of input services as defined in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 5.1 He further submitted that the entire services were exported outside India and that consideration for such services is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... • Megma Design Automation (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2015 (40) STR 800 (Tri.-Bang.) • CCE Vs. Tavant Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.: 2016 (43) STR 57 (Kar.) 5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has upheld the Order-in-Original with regard to few services on the ground that the invoices and other documents were not furnished by the appellant in support of their contention to show that the disputed input services are related to provisions of output services. The learned Commissioner (A) has also rejected the refund with regard to certain invoices which are not conforming to Rule 4A which the appellant has also produced. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent has recomputed the m....