TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner (A) has rejected the rebate claims on following findings: • Appellant should have opted for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, instead they have filed the rebated claim under Notification 11/2005dated April 19, 2005. • Appellant has not complied with conditions of Notification 11/2005. • Appellant has failed to produce details of Cenvat credit availed/utilized, maintenance of proper records showing the receipt and consumption of the input services etc. • Input services have no relation to the output service. They are not directly or indirectly related to the export services rendered. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, the appeals are being taken up toge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the appellant, the original authority rejected the rebate claims. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who upheld the OIOs and rejected the rebate claims on the findings recorded in para 1 above. Hence, these present appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that all the conditions under the rebate notification have been satisfied and all documents have been submitted. The conditions as satisfied by the Appellant were summarized as follows: • Taxable service has been exported in terms of Rule 3 of the Export Rules - Appellant has exported "Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services" to Novartis institutes for Biomedical Research, USA, P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of service tax return filed for the impugned period evidencing the utilization of CENVAT credit towards remittance of Service Tax and cess. • Declaration stating that the services have been exported in terms of Rule 3. • Relevant documentary evidence evidencing export of taxable service has been provided. 4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the impugned orders rejecting the rebate claim are not sustainable in law as the Appellant has the option to choose the notification under which rebate is to be claimed. It is a settled position of law that when there is more than one option available to the Appellant to claim refund/rebate, it is at the discretion of the Appellant to opt for the opt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be read in a narrow manner so as to defeat the object of notification. It is a settled principle of law that a beneficial notification must be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. The Appellant placed reliance on case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. M/s Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors-2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) wherein it was held that a beneficial notification must be construed strictly with regard to the letter of the law. 4.5 He also submitted that while dealing with the question of rebate, the question of which input was used in terms of availment of cenvat credit does not arise and placed reliance on the case of Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad-II 2016 (42) STR 66 (T....