2025 (3) TMI 844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re that the appellant is a 100% Software EOU, registered under the Software Technology Park scheme of Government of India for export of services. The appellant, during the relevant period from April 2007 to May 2008, had discharged service tax under reverse charge mechanism in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the services received from M/s. Texas Instruments Inc., USA viz. Management of Business Consultancy Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service, Information Technology Software Service (ITSS) (June 2008 onwards), Management Consultancy Service (June 2008 onwards) and availed cenvat credit amounting to Rs.14,06,03,251/-. Alleging that the output services provided by the appellant viz. ITSS till 15.05.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service tax on the domestic services under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and services received from outside India under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2(l)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The total amount of Rs.14,06,03,251/- was paid as service tax on input services, which they availed cenvat credit. 3.2. She has submitted that during the period April 2007 to May 2008, the appellant had filed four refund claims for the quarters April to June 2007, July 2007 to December 2007, January 2008 to March 2008 and April 2008 to May 2008 for claiming the accumulated cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said refund claims were rejected by the Department solely on the ground that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue and settled it in appellant's favour by upholding that the refund of credit cannot be rejected on the ground that the output services provided by the appellant being ITSS were not taxable during the relevant period. She has submitted that the refund has already been sanctioned to the appellant and the issue of eligibility of credit has already been put to test; therefore the credit of Rs.14,06,03,251/- is admissible and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, in support of her contention, she has referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the following cases:- i. Kyocera Wireless Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2014(9) TMI 1036 - CESTAT BANGALORE] ii. Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2....