AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 as a Service-provider under the category of Rent-a-Cab Scheme operator service, Manpower Recruitment/Supply Agency service, Scientific and technical consultancy services, Transport of goods by Road/ Goods Transport agency service, Sponsorship service provided to body corporate or firm including sports consultancy sponsorship, Business Support Service, Works Contract Service, Legal Consultancy Service other than the 119 listed. They are also availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs/ capitals goods as well as service tax paid on input services under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of EA-2000 audit conducted by the department during the month of March....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant's own case, on the issue of admissibility of the Cenvat Credit, the appellant's refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules were rejected. The Tribunal dealing in those cases passed the following orders: 1. Final Order No. 12764-12769/ 2023 dated 15.12.2023 2. Final Order No. A/10247-10248/2020 dated 24.01.2020 1. He submits in view of the above order, the issue is no long res-integra and the same is settled and following the same, present appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Shri Rajesh Nathan, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. In the present case, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant's own case refund was allowed by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/ 10247-10248/2020 dated 24.1.2020. The said order is reproduced below:- "This appeal has been filed by M/s. Unimed Technologies Limited and Shri P.K.Jain (GM) against Order demanding Service Tax, Interest and imposing penalty under Section 11 AC read with rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The appellant M/s. Unimed Technologies Limited entered into separate agreements with M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industry Limited (SPIL) and M/s. Sun Pharma Advance Research Company Limited (SPARC) for carrying out research and development and transfer of developed technology/Know-How for manufacture of various ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an manufacturer. 5. The appellant also relied on Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules to assert that input service can be exported as such after availing credit. It was also argued that such services cannot be consumed when the same are used. It was argued that the Goods & Services are substantially different in that respect. 6. Learned Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order. He particularly pointed out Para 25.8, 25.10 & 25.12 of the impugned order where assertion has been made that the service was exported on the same day when it was received. In these arguments it was asserted by the learned Authorized Representative that this fact of receipt & export of services on same day establishes that the services were not used by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement reads as follows: "ULT shall have right, but not the obligation, to direct, monitor and supervise all research, studies and trials by SPIL so that it meets with UTL's objectives of Research and Development, and discuss the methodologies and results of such research, studies or trials with the persons responsible for the design and conduct of such research, studies or trials by or on behalf of SPIL." It is also seen similarly the Para 6 prescribes the time schedule of the activity. From the said clauses it is apparent that while the technology was being developed by SPIL. The appellant was directly involved in Supervision and Monitoring even the time schedule and development was being decided mutually. From the above it is app....