TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Sanjay Chhabria and Shri Anurag Hans, CAs for the Appellant Shri K. A. Jathin, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER These three miscellaneous applications are filed seeking to introduce additional grounds to the appeals filed earlier. Learned Chartered Accountants appearing for the appellant has submitted that these grounds relate to question of law and not elaborated in the earlier grounds, hence, may be allowed to be taken on record. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has no objection. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications are allowed and the grounds now mentioned in the miscellaneous applications shall be part of the grounds of appeals. 2. These three appeals are filed against Order-in-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the appellant. For this purpose, the overseas publishers send the manuscript through e-mail and also through courier; and the appellant after carrying out the activities, send the final documents to them through online or courier, as the case may be. The services are either provided to their overseas customers through their group entity situated abroad or to their customers directly. He has submitted that they availed CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid on various input services viz., office rent, consultancy and professional services, tele-communication/internet services, manpower recruitment consultancy services, housekeeping services, repair and maintenance, courier charges, security services, Tour Operator Services, printing and sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71 - CESTAT CHENNAI later upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court as reported at 2021 (3) TMI 238 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax: 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KAR-HC; KPTI Cumins Infosystems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I: 2013 (32) STR 356 (Tri.-Mum.); M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, BBSR: 2018 (11) TMI 918 - CESTAT KOLKATA. 5. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue involved in the present appeals for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to cash ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, however, refund claim cannot be denied under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 in view of the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (supra). It is also argued that though in the show-cause notice it has proposed to reject refund claims on certain grounds but the grounds on which the adjudicating authority rejected their refund claims are different and never proposed; hence, the order of the rejection of refund is bad in law. From the records, I find that the department had allowed the refund claims for the earlier period from January 2008 to March 2008 and also for the subsequent period from October 2010 to September 2013 i.e., much after the rejection of the present refund claims i.e., in the year 2019. The ....