2018 (5) TMI 923

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....94,636/- on the grounds that the operations were carried out at different locations and which were not registered in the Centralised registration; denial of refund of Rs. 6,35,422/- on the ground that invoices issued by the Service Provider were not in the name of appellant. 4. Appellant herein is an exporter of services and was availing CENVAT credit of various input services; he had different locations in Hyderabad and have a centralised registration at Somajiguda, Hyderabad. They availed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various services at different locations which were taken on hire/rent by them from land owners. It is the case of Revenue that since these premises were not registered with the service tax department and requir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... software at the relevant point of time was not a taxable service. However, the assessee had paid input tax on various services. According to the assessee a sum of Rs. 4,36,985/- is accumulated Cenvat credit. The Tribunal has categorically held that even though the export of software is not a taxable service but still the assessee cannot be denied the Cenvat credit. The assessee is entitled to the refund of Cenvat credit. Similarly insofar as refund of Cenvat credit is concerned, the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for refund a accumulated Cenvat credit. Therefore, bar of limitation cannot be a ground to refuse Cenvat credit to the assessee. (7). Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition ....