2019 (3) TMI 1438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the present case are that the appellant is a software export oriented unit and primarily engaged in providing Information Technology Services to its group companies located outside India and hence, qualifies as Export of Service under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant had filed two refund claims. The said refund claims were partially sanctioned by the original authority and partially rejected the same. The details of both the claims are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Refund claim rejected ST/20227/2019 October 2011 to March 2012 Rs.31,87,395/- ST/20228/2019 April 2011 to September 2011 Rs.30,41,619/- During the claim period, the appellant had three separate service tax registration i.e., at Bang....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside only on this ground that it has traversed beyond the show-cause notice. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions. • Saci Allied Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut: 2005 (183) ELT 225 (SC) • Manikya Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore-III: 2003 (160) ELT 273 (Tri.-Bang.) • Vikram Jain vs. CC: 2006 (205) ELT 735 (Tri.-Bang.) • Bhagwati Silk Mills vs. CCE, Surat: 2006 (205) ELT 182 (Tri.-Mum.) • Philips India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2005 (191) ELT 1028 (Tri.-Mum.) 4.1 He further submitted that the appellant is a 100% EOU and has exported its services during the refund period and the same is evident from the copies....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of CST, Bangalore vs. Focus Infosys (India) Pvt. Ltd.: 2012-TIOL-574 where the CESTAT, Bangalore held that where CENVAT credit taken are verifiable from the documents available with the assessee, denial of refund merely on the ground that refund relates to period prior to registration may not be justified. The learned consultant further submitted that once the appellant has got the centralized registration of Bangalore, all the claims pertaining to the appellant would lie in Bangalore jurisdiction. Further, after the centralized registration is granted, the registration of Hyderabad and Pune are deemed to be cancelled. He also submitted that the Hyderabad and Pune jurisdiction will not entertain any refund claim after the grant of c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been rejected. He further submitted that the Notification has to be strictly interpreted. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • Principal Commissioner of Service Tax vs. R.R. Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.: 2016 (45) STR 5 (AP) • CCE, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal : 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant which is a 100% EOU and is engaged in export of service to its group companies located outside India and the service rendered by the appellant qualifies as Export of Service under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Further, I find that the appellant filed refund claim pertaini....