2023 (11) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER Per : S. K. Mohanty Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing the output services, under the taxable category of 'management or business consultant service', 'business support service', and 'information technology software service' defined under clauses (r), (zzzq) and (zzzze) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively. The appellants avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the input services which are used in the provision of output services. During the period from October, 2012 to March, 2015, the appellants had exported the output services in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 without payment of service tax. Since, there was no occasion for utilization ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to the service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had negated the original order, holding that the relevant date for reckoning the limitation for filing refund application under Section 11B ibid, would be the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange by the exporter-appellants and in case where payment for the service had been received in advance, then the same would be the date of issue of invoice. Accordingly, he has partly allowed the refund benefit, except for the period January, 2014 to March, 2014, where the entire amount of refund claim was rejected on the ground that no details of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the disputed services cannot be considered as 'input service' defined under Rule 2(l) ibid and that there is no nexus between the input services and output services. It is an undisputed fact in this case, that taking of Cenvat credit on the disputed services was never questioned by the department, which is evident from the fact that no proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 ibid, for recovery of the alleged irregular cenvat credit. Since, availment of cenvat credit by the appellants were not under dispute, claiming of refund of such credit on account of exportation of output services cannot be questioned inasmuch as Rule 5 ibid, nowhere specifies for establishment of nexus or otherwise for sanction of the refund benefit. Since, the ....