TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 CE (NT). The Original adjudicating authority decided allowing certain specific input services and disallowed on other input services on the ground that they did not have nexus with the services exported by the appellant. On various appeals filed by the appellants, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that no documentary evidence such as utilization certificate from the customers has not been submitted by the appellant to prove that the services have been used and enjoyed outside India. Appeal Nos. C/20714 - 20718/2015 were filed. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further, allowed some services and rejected some services holding that the services do not qualify as essential input service for the provision of output service. Hence, appeals ST/20211/2015, ST/20214/2015, ST/23815/2014, ST/23818/2014, ST/232 19 /2014 and ST/23820/2014 were filed. 2. In respect of appeals related to the observation that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the services have been enjoyed outside India, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the service tax or Cenvat provisions prescribe no c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e further submits that CESTAT in the case of CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. followed Mumbai High Court vide Final Order No. 22641-22644/2017. He further submits that CBEC Circular 120/01/2010 ST dated January 19, 2010 states that even if different prices are used under different rules of Cenvat Credit Rules, they have to be construed in a harmonious manner. The appellant has submitted a chart showing different services showing as to how each of the disputed services are essential and integral to the provision of output service by the appellant. 2.2. Learned counsel further submits that it can be seen from the agreement that the benefit of service provided by the appellants accrue outside India and as such qualify for export of service. He submits that a declaration received from Samsung Electronics Company, Korea is being now submitted. The declaration categorically states that the services were used by the recipient for the purpose of its business outside India. The appellant further states that they submitted certified correlation statements between FIRC and export invoices which are certified by the banks before the Commissioner (Appeals). Regarding other minor allegation in thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 430(Tri.-Bang.) Club or Association Service 3,36,537 CCE & ST, Bangalore - II Vs. Nash Industries - 2016 (45) STR 233 (Tri.-Bang.) Clearing and Forwarding Services 3,08,996 Jeans Knit P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2011(21) STR 460 (Tri.-Bang.) Rent a Cab 1,24,418 C.J. Gelatine Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhopal - 2012 (25) STR 109 (Tri.-Del.) Outdoor Catering 1,24,418 Heartland Bangalore Transcription services P. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore - 2011 (21) STR 430(Tri.-Bang.) Business Auxiliary Service 31,456 CCE & ST, Bangalore - II Vs. Nash Industries - 2016 (45) STR 233 (Tri.-Bang.) Cargo Handling 22,745 Jeans Knit P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2011(21) STR 460 (Tri.-Bang.) Company Secretary Services 15,304 CCE & ST, Bangalore - II Vs. Nash Industries - 2016 (45) STR 233 (Tri.-Bang.) Advertising Agency Services 14,907 CST, Vs. Convergys (I) P. Ltd. - 2009(92) RLT 1017 (Tri.) Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service 8,369 DSCL Sugar Vs. CCE, Lucknow - 2012 (12) TMI 830 (CESTAT-Del.) 4. He submits in respect of all the refunds that interest be allowed on the refund from the date of filing of the application for refund; it is a well settled po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants. Moreover, the appellants are a unit in the STPI and are filing the returns with the STPI from time to time. The STPI authorities are validating the exports from time to time. Therefore, we find that the appellants are exporting services in relation to Information Technology Software. The recipient is undisputedly Samsung Korea which is outside India. The appellants are receiving the renumeration for the services rendered in foreign exchange. Therefore, we find that the activity undertaken by appellants amounts to export of services. It is seen that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has found that no documentary evidence such as utilization certificate was not provided by the overseas customers. The appellant submits that there is correlation between the FIRC's and export invoices. These records cannot be brush aside. Moreover, we find that the Department has not disputed this issue in respect of all claims. In some refund claims rejection was on account of alleged absence of nexus or other procedural infractions. Therefore, it is understood that the Department does not dispute the claim of export of services by the appellants. We find that the appellants have submitted a de....