TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant - Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated 24.06.2024, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (for short 'CESTAT') in Excise Appeal No. 11516, 11517, 11518, 11873, 11874, 11875, 11876 and 11877 of 2016: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that respondent was entitled to credit of the services rendered from (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that the respondent received and consumed the service while they were participating in the development of tech....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48/2020 dated 24.01.2020, therefore on the basis of said decision the appeal deserves to be set aside. 3. Shri Rajesh Nathan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that in respect of same input service in the same set of facts, in the appellant's own case refund was allowed by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/10247 10248/2020 dated 24.1 2020. The said order is reproduced below:- "This appeal has been filed by M/s. Unimed Technologies Limited and Shri P. K. Jain (GM) against Order demanding Service Tax, Interest and imposing pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service used for providing same service cannot be denied. He placed reliance on this tribunal decision in MERCEDES BENZ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INDIA PVT LTD VS C.S.T BANGALORE 2017 (49) S.T.R. 227 (TRI.BANG). He also relied on decision of tribunal in case of FINOLEX CABLES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GOA 2007 (210) ELT 76 where it was held that the facility available to merchant exporter cannot be denied to an manufacturer. 5. The appellant also relied on Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules to assert that input service can be exported as such after availing credit. It was also argued that such services cannot be consumed when the same ore used. It was argued that the Goods & Services are sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....availed. 8. On the first principle it is seen that the services has been exported by the appellant and logically there should not be any tax liability on such exports even on the first principle any tax paid on development of such service should be refunded to the appellants. Availability of credit is also a kind of refund. 9 A perusal of the agreement of the appellant with SPIL shows that it gives the Right of Supervision and Monitoring to the appellant. Para 2 of the agreement reads as follows: "ULT shall have right, but not the obligation, to direct, monitor and supervise all research, studies and trials by SPIL so that it meets with UTL's objectives of Research and Development, and discuss the methodologies and res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd monitoring the same. 11. In view of above we do not find any merit in the argument of the revenue that the services provided by SPIL was not used by the appellant and were exported as such. We find that the agreement in respect of SPARC is also the same and, therefore, the arguments above are equally applicable to the services provided by SPARC. 12. In view of above we do not find any merit in the arguments of the revenue that services were exported without use by the appellant and, therefore, no credit is admissible. 13. Appeal is consequently allowed." 4.1 From the above decision in the appellant's own case it can be seen that the issue in the present case and the case cited above is identical. I....