TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... June 2016 . 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in providing support services to its group companies located outside India and they are providing the services in the nature of Business Support Services and Business Auxiliary Services. During the course of its operation, appellant received certain input services which were entirely used for providing taxable service exported in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Since the services provided by the appellant were exported outside India and there was no service tax liability on the output services provided, the cenvat credit availed by the appellant remained unutilized. Appellant being an exporter was entitled to claim unutilized cenvat credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant has not debited the refund claim amount from the cenvat credit and the service tax return at the time of making the refund and such amount has been transferred through TRAN-1 into the GST regime. He further submitted that the appellant has, by inadvertent mistake, transferred the cenvat credit to TRAN-1 form but subsequently on realizing his mistake, the appellant reversed the said credit in GSTR-3B return filed for the month of May 2018. He further submitted that during the service tax audit, the appellant informed the audit party regarding the inadvertent mistake and also submitted the GSTR-3B return in the month of May 2018 in which transferred credit was reversed. He further submitted that reversal of input credit at the time of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urposes they were intended to serve". Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as the same traversed beyond the show-cause notice and does not consider the submissions made by the appellant during the course of adjudication proceedings. Learned counsel in his additional submissions filed at the time of argument has taken a ground that the impugned order is factually incorrect to the extent that in Para 9.1 of the impugned order, it has been observed that the assessee has failed to debit the refund amount in cenvat credit account, ST-3 return and Form A at the time of filing the refund claim on 16/06/2017 for the period April 2016 to June 2016 and thereby not complied with the conditions under Notification No.27/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stries Vs. CCE [2007(212) ELT 421] iv. BSNL Vs. CCE [2009(14) STR 699] 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that it is not in dispute that the appellant is an exporter and does not have any domestic services at all. Appellant availed input services for the purpose of rendering output service exporting to his foreign company for which he pays service tax and take cenvat credit. Since the appellant was unable to utilize the cenvat credit for payment of its output liability, the appellant filed a refund claim for the period April 2016 to June 2016 which was rejected by the original authority on the gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the GST regime. As soon as, he realized his bona fide and unintentional mistake and the reversal was done in GSTR-3B returns in May 2018 itself. I also find that during the relevant period, the appellant has not utilized the cenvat credit and it was merely a procedural lapse which was rectified by the appellant on its own and was also informed the Department regarding the subsequent reversal in GSTR-3B filed by the appellant in May 2018. In my view, since the appellant who is a 100% exporter of service and has reversed the credit wrongly taken through GSTR-3B is sufficient to hold that the amount of cenvat credit claimed as refund has not been utilized by the appellant in any manner and has been deemed to have been reversed by the appell....