TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the Petitioner-Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. challenging the following Orders-in-Appeal: (i) Order-in-Appeal No. 130/ADC/Central Tax/ Appeals-I/Delhi/2023 dated 28th April, 2023 in W.P.(C) 11718/2025, (ii) Order-in-Appeal No. 245-246/ADC/Central Tax/Appeal-I/Delhi/2024 dated 25th June 2024 in W.P.(C) 11733/2025, (iii) Order-in-Appeal No. 237-238/ADC/Central Tax/Appeal-I/Delhi/2024 dated 19th June, 2024 in W.P.(C) 11736/2025, (iv) Order-in-Appeal No. 146-150/ADC/Central Tax /Appeal-I/Delhi/2024-25 dated 13th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) 11762/2025. 3. According to the Petitioner, it is a company engaged in the service of exclusively providing software development,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,987 5. The details of the all the Orders-in-Originals passed in the petitions are as under: W.P. (C) 11718/2025 ● For the Period June 2020, Order-in-Original dated 23rd September, 2022 was passed vide which the refund claim of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 46,00,298/- was rejected on the ground that the services provided by the Petitioner are not covered under the definition of 'export of service'. ● On the contrary, the Respondent No. 2 herein passed the impugned order 28th April, 2023 rejecting the refund claim amounting to Rs. 46,00,298/- observing that the agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Parent Company i.e., Chegg Inc., USA was not on record and hence, whether the Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....679; For the Period September, 2018, Order-in-Original dated 11th June, 2024 was passed vide which the refund of ITC amounting Rs. 58,26,260/- was allowed while rejecting refund of ITC amounting Rs. 9,24,093, inter alia, on grounds of the invoices not being furnished. ● For the Period April 2021-June 2021, Order-in-Original dated 10th June, 2024 was passed vide which the refund of ITC amounting Rs. 1,05,30,241/- was allowed while rejecting refund of ITC amounting Rs.5,08,277, inter alia, on grounds of the details not being furnished by the Petitioner. ● For the Period. July, 2021 to September, 2021, Order-in-Original dated 10th June, 2024 was passed vide which the refund of ITC amounting Rs. 92,61,263/- was all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... services and subject matter of the refund applications are the same in all four matters. Thus, on the same nature of transactions, the findings would appear to be contradictory. 8. The overall question that would arise is whether the Petitioner is entitled to refund of these amounts and if so, has sufficient documentary evidence been filed to support the claim for refunds. 9. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the documents have been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority which passed the Order-in-Original and in some cases where the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (hereinafter, 'FIRC') was not available, the same were even filed at the appellate stage. 10. Mr. Ojha, ld. SSC for the Respondent submits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration of the matter by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellate Authority is fully empowered to consider the entire matter afresh including the reply of the Petitioner, as also the reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority, the evidence on record including the statements and the documents. There can be no doubt that the appeal is a full-fledged first appeal before the Appellate Authority." 12. The refunds which have been granted or not granted to the Petitioner, are on the ground of existence of documentary evidence and secondly, on the basis of the nature of the services exported. On both these issues, the Adjudicating Authority had allowed some refunds and rejected some. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority would have to tak....