2026 (6) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-139/2014 dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals - II), Bangalore. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is engaged in the export of various marketing support services to their parent-company in terms of Service Agreement. The appellant had filed refund claim for the period from October 2008 to September 2009 under Notification No. 05/2006-CX (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order rejected the refund claim on the ground that the services rendered by the appellant do not qualify to be export of services. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant is appeal before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the Service Agreement, the appellant provides....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, ST, Bangalore-LTU: 2020 (34) GSTL 436 and in the case of M/s. Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi: 2014 (36) STR 766 (Tri. - Del.). 4. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) submits that the issue stands covered by the decision in the case of M/s. Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi (supra) which is upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in 2009 (16) STR 545 (Del.). He also submits that in view of the Board Circular No. 111/05/2009 dated 24.02.2009 and Circular dated 13.05.2011, the condition 'used outside India' is relevant and export benefit was admissible only where the use and consumption of service occurred outside India; hence merely receiving foreign exchange ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Thus, Rule 5 ibid provides for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit, subject to compliance of the procedures/guidelines laid down under the notifications issued thereunder. We find that the refund benefit was denied to the assessee-appellant on the sole ground that there was no nexus between the input services and the output service exported by the appellant. Further, in Revenue's appeal, it has been contended that certain disputed services are not conforming to the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(l) ibid. Insofar as taking of irregular Cenvat credit is concerned, Rule 14 ibid clearly mandates that in case of irregular availment of credit or its utilisation, such credit can be recovered from the assessee and for effecting t....