TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d refund claim. However alleging that for the period from April, 2009 to September 2009, few of the services have no nexus with output services, show cause notice as issued on 15.02.2010. Adjudication authority vide order dated 31.01.2011 rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) as per Order dated 30.01.2012 rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Sr. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that entire services on which CENVAT availed by the Appellant are essentially required for providing output service. Sr. Learned Counsel further submits that the impugned order is issued without application of mind as evident from the finding that the application was filed for refund of the credit availed between 01.10.2006 to 30.10.2006 and it is barred by limitation. Whereas the refund is pertaining to the period from April, 2009 to September, 2009 and impugned order is issued in 2011 only. Further submits as per the impugned Order-in-Original, it is specifically stated that the refund application was filed on 30.11.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & CE - 2022 (64) GSTL 485 (Chennai-Cestat). Sr. Learned Counsel also draw our attention to the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and submits that the services for which the refund of input credit is being denied were indeed utilized by the service provider. These services were employed directly or indirectly in connection with delivery of taxable service. In this regard, Sr. Learned Counsel also draw our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s Microsoft Global Service Centre India Pvt Ltd vs CC, Hyderabad (2021 (44) GSTL 264 (Tri. Hyderabad) where it is held that; "8.1 A service provider is permitted under the Cenvat statute to take credit on the input or input service used in output service, which is exported by it. The credit so taken by such type of service provider is allowed for utilisation for payment of service tax on the output service. However, for any reason, where such credit adjustment is not possible, a service provider is allowed for refund of such credit amount, subject to fulfilment of the conditions and limitations, as may be specified by the Central Government by way of issuance of notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to total turnover". 5. Further Department of Revenue has issued Circular dated 16.03.2012 vide BO F.No. 334/1/2012-TRU where it is clarified that a simplified scheme for refund is being introduced by substituting the entire Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The new scheme does not require the kind of co relation that is made at present between export and input services used in such export. Duties for taxes paid on any goods or services that qualified as goods for input services will be entitled for refund of said in the ratio of the export turn over to total turnover. 6. The Sr. Learned Counsel also draw our attention to the certificate issued by the authorized Chartered Accountant of the Appellant for claiming refund of service tax produced by the Appellant before the Adjudicating authority specifying that; On the basis of the examination carried out by us and on the basis of information and explanations given to us, we, BSR & Co. hereby certify that: (i) The above contents for the period from 1 April 2009 to 30 September 2009 with respect to M/s Cable & Wireless Networks India Private Limited are correct and true to our best knowledge; (ii) The inputs/ input ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned order that the services provided by the Appellant does not qualify as export of services, Sr. Learned Counsel submits that said finding is also erroneous and contradictory to the Circular No. 111/05/2009-ST dated 24.02.2009 which clarifies that; for services that fall under the Category III, the deciding factor for eligibility to export is the location of service recipient and not the place of performance. Further, it is clarified that 'used outside India' in such cases means that the benefit of the services should accrue outside India. Further such objection was not part of the show cause notice or the Order-in-Original and by rejecting the claim by raising such issues, the First Appellate authority travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice and impugned order is unsustainable for that reason also. 11. The Sr. Learned Counsel also draw our attention to the details statement showing each and every input service on which claim was made and also draw our attention to the case laws where it is categorically held that such input services are eligible services for claiming CENVAT credit. The Sr. Learned Counsel draws our attention to the decision of Larger Bench in the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (supra), in which the Constitutional Bench has laid down the guideline that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be viewed only prospectively. Keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court, we conclude that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis." 12. The Learned AR reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that requirement of producing invoices in support of the refund claim is mandatory as per the Notification No. 5/2006-C.EX (NT) dated 14.03.2006 and this deficiency of necessary basic requirement impedes the process of a complete verification of the claim. As regarding eligibility of input services Learned Counsel submits that it is important since Service & Revenue Share Agreement signed between the appellant and Cable & Wireless, UK to provide each other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or April 2009to September 2009 and adjudication authority specifically held that the claim is filed within the time limit in terms of the section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944. As regarding the finding related to improper of address in some documents, the issue was considered by this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Nexus Engineers vs CCE & GST, Lucknow (2024 (17) CENTAX 259 (Tri. Allahabad) where the refund was denied on the ground that the invoices against which the Appellant taken the credit was not addressed to the registered premises of the Appellant and it was held that the issue is no more res integra as it was decided that for claiming the benefit of inputs services it is not necessary that the invoices being addressed to the registered premises of the Appellant. The issue was also considered by this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Manipal Advertising services Pvt Ltd vs CC, Mangalore (2010 (19) STR 506 (Tri. Bang) where it is held that; "7. If a person is discharging Service tax liability from his registered premises, the benefit of Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid by the service provid....