TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... denying the refund on other services. The Commissioner(Appeals) has also denied refund on time bar as well as on lack of nexus in regard to certain services. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is almost identical, both appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in export of "Information Software Services (ITSS) and they had filed refund clams seeking refund of unutilized CENVAT credit paid on various input services used for the services exported by them during the impugned period under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006. The details of the refund claims are given herein below:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... export of services. He also cited few decisions in favour of the assessee wherein it has been held that the relevant date for computation of time limit is the date of receipt of consideration and not the date of invoice. Since there were divergent views on this issue by various Benches of this Tribunal, a Larger Bench was constituted on a reference made by a Hon'ble Single Member Bench and the Larger Bench in the case of CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [Interim Order No.4/2018 dt. 09/02/2018], after hearing of the parties, has unanimously held that the relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules may be taken as the end of the quar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service is an input service and the same was availed not for the purpose of entertainment or amusement but it relates to membership with the Indian Semiconductors Association which is mainly for furtherance of the business and enhancing the knowledge in the field of semiconductors. In support of this, he relied upon the decision in the case of Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Hyderabad wherein the Tribunal has held that service tax paid membership in such associations augments the business of the organization and it is actually for the benefit of organization and not for personal use or consumption of any employee. Therefore it would not fall in the exclusion portion of the definition of input service and hence the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the present case, the period involved is prior to 01/04/2011. Therefore by following the ratio of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd., I hold that the outdoor catering service is eligible as input service prior to 01/04/2011. Therefore the input services which have been denied by both the authorities fall under the definition of input service. 8. The third ground on which the refund claim has been rejected is the inconsistency in the computation of the amount eligible for refund. The learned consultant submitted that the learned Assistant Commissioner has made an apparent error in computing amount eligible for refund. The learned consultant submitted that refund has to be computed on CENVAT credi....