TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t services for providing output service said to have been exported during the relevant periods. The claims were filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012. The details of both the appeals are given herein below:- Particulars Appeal No.ST/20336/2020 Appeal No.ST/20337/2020 Period of dispute January 2017 to March 2017 April 2017 to June 2017 Refund claimed Rs. 8,45,339/- Rs. 12,15,125/- Refund filed on 21/12/2017 28/3/2018 SCN date 31/01/2018 12/04/2018 OIO dt. 30/04/2019 30/04/2019 OIA No. and date No.333 & 334/2020 dt. 25/06/2020 2.2. During the verification of the claims, certain discrepancies were noticed by the original adjudicating authority, hence, show-cause notices were issued in respect of both the refund claims. Appellant filed parawise reply to those show-cause notices and after following the due process, the original authority vide Orders-in-Original both dt. 30/04/2019 rejected the entire refund claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed under Rule 6A of Service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfied the condition specified under Rule 6A(1)(b) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 which requires that the recipient of service should be located outside India. The services are rendered to the respective service recipient as per the service agreement who are located outside India and thereby they have satisfied the condition laid down in Rule 6A(1)(b) and are entitled for the refund. She further submitted that in the present case, the support services rendered by the appellant are not covered under the specific provisions of Place of Provisions Rules and therefore the Rule 3 would apply, whereby the place of provision of these services will be the location of the service recipient. She further submitted that the service recipient i.e. WMGS BVI and WMGS Netherlands are located in British Virgin Islands and Netherlands respectively, which is outside India and hence the place of provision of service rendered by the appellant is outside India and has satisfied the condition laid down in Rule 6A(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. She further submitted that foreign inward remittances for the export invoices were received from WMGS Investment LLC and this arrangement is in accordance with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund and she has cited the following decisions:- i. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. UOI [2011-TIOL-105-SC] ii. Xerox Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT &CE [2019-TIOL-508-HC-KERALA] iii. Reliance Industries ltd. Vs. CCE [2014-TIOL-1486-CESTAT-Ahmedabad] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has not complied with the conditions as provided in Rule 6A(1)(b) and Rule 6A(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Learned AR further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has given detailed reasons for rejection of the refund claims on the ground that the appellant could not prove the export of service and further the learned AR submitted Works Contract Service has been excluded from the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) as there is no nexus with the resultant output service rendered by the appellant. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant have entered Sourcing Service Agreement with WMGS Services Ltd. Located in British Virgin Island and WMGS Netherlands located in the Nether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel did not press for the same as the amount involved is small. 6.2. As far as claim of interest on delay in refund is concerned, I find that as per the decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra), appellant is also entitled for grant of interest on delayed refund claim beyond the period of three months. It is pertinent to note that the apex court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) has held as under: "9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant....