TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. Three Appeals bearing No. E/11516-11518/2016 involved the issue whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of input service namely 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service'. In other five Appeals bearing No. E/11873- 11877/2016, whether the appellant is entitled for refund under Rule 5 in respect of Service Tax paid on aforesaid 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service'. In these five appeals the refund involved is consequential to outcome of the above three appeals. 2. Shri Ashok B Nawal, Learned Cost Accountant with Ms. Nidhi Nawal Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the issue is no longer res-integra as the same has been settled by this Tribunal in the appellant's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e related to refund under Rule 5, he submits that the refund was rejected on the ground that the service namely 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service' is not input service. Therefore, since the 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service' has been held as input service, the appellant are entitled for the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. On the other hand, Shri Tara Praksah, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR), appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that exactly same issue and facts related thereto involved in the appellant's own case. This Tribunal vide various orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service Tax, Interest and imposing penalty under Section 11 AC read with rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The appellant M/s. Unimed Technologies Limited entered into separate agreements with M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industry Limited (SPIL) and M/s. Sun Pharma Advance Research Company Limited (SPARC) for carrying out research and development and transfer of developed technology/KnowHow for manufacture of various pharmaceuticals products. Accordingly, SPIL & SPARC developed certain technologies for manufacturing of various pharmaceuticals products and sold/transferred such technology to the appellant under five different invoices after payment of Service Tax thereon under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It was argued that the Goods & Services are substantially different in that respect. 6. Learned Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order. He particularly pointed out Para 25.8, 25.10 & 25.12 of the impugned order where assertion has been made that the service was exported on the same day when it was received. In these arguments it was asserted by the learned Authorized Representative that this fact of receipt & export of services on same day establishes that the services were not used by the appellant and, therefore, no credit can be allowed of such services. 7. We have gone through the rival submissions, we find that the appellants M/s. Unimed Technologies Limited entered into a contract with M/s. Sun Pharma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pment, and discuss the methodologies and results of such research, studies or trials with the persons responsible for the design and conduct of such research, studies or trials by or on behalf of SPIL." It is also seen similarly the Para 6 prescribes the time schedule of the activity. From the said clauses it is apparent that while the technology was being developed by SPIL. The appellant was directly involved in Supervision and Monitoring even the time schedule and development was being decided mutually. From the above it is apparent that while the technology was being prepared it was being monitored by the appellants themselves which in itself amounts to use of the service. 10. The only fact that revenue has used to insi....