2023 (9) TMI 1256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gaon (Division- III), under the taxable category of 'Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Services' (Online Services) defined under Section 65(75) and taxable under Section 65(105) (zh) of Finance Act, 1994. • The appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital IQ Inc., a company based in New York, United States of America. In the year 2004, CIQ Inc. was acquired by the McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., thus the appellant is now the sub-subsidiary of the McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. The appellant entered into an Agreement dated 01.04.2007 with CIQ Inc. to provide Online Services. • The services provided by the Appellant include processing of annual, and quarterly financial reports and press releases of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Period was proposed to be rejected, and the amount of Rs. 6,76,212 already refunded was sought to be demanded from the Appellant. The show cause notice sought to deny the refund claim on the grounds mentioned inter alia: (i) Services are performed locally and provided in India and the Assessee does not fulfil the condition mentioned in Rule 3(2) of Export of Service Rules 2005 (ii) The exact nature of the output service is not clearly indicated in the output invoices submitted by the assessee. Further, the correlation of output service with that of Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Service is not fully established. (iii) The remittance against the output invoices was made to the account operate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al on the remaining four (4) issues, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) only on the remaining four (4) issues (Issue No. I, II, III and VI cited supra) but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated upholding the order of the Ld. Joint Commissioner and rejected the appeal on the following grounds:- (I) Discrepancy in the name of the remitter on FIRCs; and (II) Difference in the Cenvat credit shown in the return and the Cenvat claimed as refund. • Aggrieved by the said order-in-appeal, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the ref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he other hand, the Ld. DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that in the show cause notice, refund was sought to be denied on six (6) grounds cited (supra) and out of the six (6) grounds, ground No. 4 and 5 have already been accepted in the order-in-original by the Ld. Joint Commissioner and the appellant did not file the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on these grounds, but filed the appeal only on the remaining four (4) issues, namely, I, II, III and VI but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant on the points which were not in dispute before him. 7. Further, I find that these tw....