TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent case are that the appellants are registered under the service tax for providing taxable service viz. Information Technology Software Services (lTSS) and Business Auxiliary Service(BAS). They filed 5 rebate claims under Notification No. 12/2005-ST dt. 01/01/2005 under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 being the service tax and education cess paid on input services which are said to have been used in providing the ITSS. The details of the 5 appeals are given herein below:- Appeal No. Period Refund/rebate claimed Refund/rebate rejected ST/21453/2017 July 2009 to September 2009 Rs. 18,17,592/- Rs. 18,17,592/- ST/21454/2017 October 2009 to December 2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocedure prescribed under Notification No. 12/2005-ST dt. 01/01/2005 has not been fulfilled inasmuch as the claimant has availed CENVAT credit on input services and no declaration was filed before the export of service. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground that they had exported their services and realized foreign currency which fact is not in dispute. They initially filed rebate claims under Notification No.12/2005-St dt. 01/01/2005 under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2004, the appellant had requested that the claims should ultimately to be treated as refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE dt. 14/03/2006 since they w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts from the adjudication stage. He also submitted that the intention of the appellant is to claim refund and not rebate. The appellant has merely used the wrong application form for filing the same. It is his further submissions that in the first round of litigation, the original authority has used the expression "refund / rebate" interchangeable and the Commissioner(Appeals) in the first round of litigation also has used the word 'refund and rebate' interchangeable while remanding the matter back to the original authority. The learned counsel further submitted that when the factum of their being export of service, use of input services by the appellant for making export of services and receipt of consideration in convertible forei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l appeals and has held that the appellants are not entitled to the rebate because they have not complied with the conditions as prescribed under Notification No. 12/2005ST and Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2004. He further submitted that this Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which relates to grant of rebate of service tax on input services or rebate on duty paid on inputs used in providing such services and the appeal lies to the Revisionary Authority as provided in Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned AR further submitted that vide amendment in the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 14/05/2015, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain such appeal has been ousted by amendment in Section 86 ....