TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund claims for Rs.74,13,599/- for the period from October, 2007 to March, 2008 and for Rs. 50,04,250/- for the period April,2008 to July, 2008. Seeking refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit of service tax paid by them on the input services under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006. 2. The brief facts of the case are the appellant had filed the refund claims on the ground that the input services availed by them were used for 'export of services' under Export of Service Rules, 2005. A Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant alleging inter-alia that; in certain input services there is no nexus between input services and service exported; they have not submitted certain documents required for processing the refund claim. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that; the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the services provided by the appellant fall under 'Business Support Service' and not Business Auxiliary Service, since the recipient of services is not situated outside India. Hence, could not be considered as exports for claim of refund unutilised input Tax Credit; the classification of service rendered was never a point of dispute in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Original Adjudicating Authority; the service rendered could fall in Clause (vi) under section 65 (19) read with Sec 65 (105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 ; the refund for the earlier period April 2007 to September 2007 was granted by the then adjudicating authority for the same services exported (Order-in-original No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S.T.R. 120 (Tri. - Del.) vii. Lenovo India Private Limited Vs. CCE, Bangalore-Final Order No. 95/2009 dated 10.02 .2009. viii. IOC Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, (2004 (178) ELT 834), wherein the it was held that procedural lapses are condonable in the interest of export promotion and refund claim be allowed. 6. Learned Authorised Representative fairly admits that the issue is no more res integra, since this Tribunal has taken a view allowing the appeals. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. We find that the revenue has held that the services provided by the appellant fall under the category of 'Business Support Service' and not 'Business Auxiliary Service'. We find that the issue pertaining to the previous pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we are quite sure that when the issue is reconsidered, wherever this circular is applicable, the same would be applied and therefore wherever refund claims involve this service and claim has been disallowed on this ground, they have to be remanded with a direction to follow the remand instructions and apply the instructions to the facts of the case". 9. Learned Counsel further submits that the similar issue pertaining to the appellant's own case for the period from April, 2013 to September, 2013 and January, 2014 to March, 2016, were considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.241/2022 dated 30.06.2022 and following the Final Order Nos. 22825-22827/2017 dated 20.11.2017 of this Tribunal, the Appeal was allowed. 10. Th....