TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellant is a Software Technology Park of India (STPI) Unit registered as a provider of Business Auxiliary Service ('BAS' for short) and exporting IT enabled services to various countries. The appellant is stated to have filed nine refund claims for refund of total amount of Rs 2,47,85,457/- under Notification No 12/2005-ST dt. 19.4.2005 seeking refund of service tax paid by them on the input services utilized for their export service. 3. The appellant was issued an SCN No.77/2010 dated 26.11.2010 proposing to deny the refund on the grounds that: (a) the appellant did not file declaration prior to export of services as required vide clause 3.1 of the Notification and that: (b) the appellant had availed cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e OIA in Para 10 that the appellant is appearing to make contradictory claims regarding availment of cenvat credit is incorrect as in Para 3.1 of the OIO, it is accepted that although the Appellant had availed cenvat credit on input services, the same has been reversed. It is also accepted that the reversal was communicated to the Department vide letter dated 24.04.2010 and therefore, there can be no contradictory claims regarding availment of cenvat credit as it is an accepted fact that reversal had taken place. 5. Ld. Counsel further contended that the Appellant is subject to tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Para 22(a) of the tax audit report contains a specific column as 'amount of modified value added ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t along with interest. 6. Ld. Counsel further argued that the Appellant is eligible for rebate as all the required conditions for sanctioning the refund in terms of Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 and Notification No. 12/2005 have been duly complied with. One of the requirements prescribed in Notification No. 12/2005 is that the declaration is to be filed with the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and the Appellant has filed the declaration for the relevant period in the following manner. S. No Period Declaration 1 01.04.2006-31.03.2007 Declaration not filed 2 01.04.2007-31.03.2008 Declaration filed 3 01.04.2008-30.09.2008 Declaration filed 4 01.10.2008-31.03.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also reversed their cenvat credit already taken and the same was reflected in the ST 3 half yearly return filed for the period from October 2009 to March 2010 and that the facts were indeed conveyed to the Department vide their letter dated 24.04.2010. But for having availed the credit, despite reversing the same, it was chosen to treat it as noncompliance of the said condition. The lower authorities have also not controverted the categorical assertion of the appellant that such non availment also stood certified in the mandated tax audit report prepared by their statutory auditor. In such circumstances, we find the reliance placed by the appellant on the a forecited Tribunal decision that hold that reversal of cenvat credit tantamount to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jectives of policy on the one hand and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature on the other must be kept clearly distinguished. It is also noticed that the Apex Court has yet again, in the decision in Govt. of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent, 2021 (376) ELT 242 (SC), held as under: 23. It may be noticed that the 5-Judge Bench judgment did not refer to the line of authority which made a distinction between exemption provisions generally and exemption provisions which have a beneficial purpose. We cannot agree with Shri Gupta's contention that sub-silentio the line of judgments qua beneficial exemptions has been done away with by this 5-Judge Bench. It is well settled that a decision is only an aut....