2023 (5) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellant under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [2004 Rules] for the period from April 2015 to December 2015 has been upheld and the appeal has been rejected. 2. The refund claims has been filed by the appellant under a notification dated June 18, 2012 and rule 5 of the 2004 on the input services used in legal consultancy services provided by the appellant to clients situated outside India. 3. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims for the following reasons: "Therefore, in this regard after considering all the facts of the cases, I find that under the provisions of Notification No. 30/2012 -ST dated 20-06-2012, the payment of service tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of reverse charge mechanism in Service Tax vide Notification no. 30/2012 -ST dated 26.06.2012, the revised Rule 2(p) & Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 provide that the legal services rendered by the appellants are not taxable output services as the service tax on such services is required to be paid by the recipient of such services and when no service tax is required to paid by the appellant, the input stage credit will not be available to them. As discussed in para 5.3 above, it is evident that the appellant was not providing any taxable output services, therefore, they were not eligible to avail any Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules and consequentially no refund of accumulated input stage credit is allowed to the appellant.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The short issue which arises for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. The assessee seeks a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [hereafter referred to as the "2004 Rules']. xxx xxx xxx 20.1. Insofar as the last attribute is concerned, over which the entire dispute centers, it cannot but be concluded that the said exclusionary provision i.e., Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2(p) of the 2004 rules, is not applicable to the assessee, as in respect of legal service exported by it, service tax is not paid by the recipient of service. The recipient of service is located outside the taxable territory and therefore, this provision can only apply to legal services....