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

....tegory 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 over 20,000 US and International companies, extracting required....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 operated and maintained with JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. Mumbai Branch at Mumbai (also referred to as Capital IQ Information SC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 refund is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the dema....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 two (2) issues namely, (I) Discrepancy in the name of the remitter on FIRCs; and (ii) Difference in the Cenvat credit, were not in issue before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)....