2025 (8) TMI 1555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rough Cathay Pacific System (hereinafter referred as 'System'), which is a special designed software for the ticketing and reservation. For provision of such services to the overseas entity, the appellants got themselves registered with the service tax department. During the disputed period April 2014 to March 2015, the appellants had availed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on the input services. Since the output services were exported by the appellants, there was no scope or occasion on their part to utilize the Cenvat Credit balance available in their books of accounts. Hence, the appellants had filed the applications before the jurisdictional service tax authorities, claiming refund of accumulated Cenvat balance available in their book....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....012. As per the said Rule 4(a) ibid, the place of provision of service has been considered as the location, where the performance of the service involving the goods, are actually performed. It has also been provided in the said rule that the services provided in respect of the goods, are required to be made physically available by the recipient of service to the provider of service. The first proviso appended to clause (a) of Rule 4 ibid clarified that when the services are provided from a remote location by way of electronic means, then the place of provision shall be the location, where goods are situated at the time of provision of the service. The modus operandi adopted by the appellants in transferring the electronic data through the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner (Appeals), we have to conclude that the department cannot adopt the pick and choose theory for agitating the self-same dispute in respect of some of the orders and to allow the appeals passed for some of the earlier or subsequent periods. In this context, the law is well settled that when the department has accepted the principles decided in earlier cases, in preferring for non-filing of appeals, then the issue cannot be raised subsequently for deciding such settled issue differently. The issue in hand has also been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Hyderabad vs. Novapan Industries Ltd., - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below: "12.....