2026 (7) TMI 1455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the impugned order dated 22.03.2012, whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the rejection of a part of the refund claim filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 - CE (NT). 2. The fact, in brief, is that the appellant is engaged in providing information Technology Software Services, which are exported without payment of Service Tax. During the relevant period, namely January 2010 to March 2010, the appellant accumulated Cenvet Credit of input services and filed a refund claim of the unutilized credit. The Original Authority partly sanctions the refund while rejecting certain amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the rejection. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Chartered Acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara II [(2025) 37 Centax 402 (Tri.-Ahmd)], Madura Micro Finance Ltd., Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai [(2025) 37 Centax 401 (Tri.-Mad)], Pacific Harish Industries Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat [Final Order no.A/11904/2019] dated 10.10.2019 (CESTAT-AMD)], Nissan Motor India Pvt Ltd., Vs CST, Chennai [(Final Order No. 4034440345/2019) dated 21.2.2019 - CESTAT Chennai], Polygenta Technologies Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik - I [2018-TIOL-320-CESTAT-MUM], CCE, Salem Vs JSW Steels Ltd., [2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 153 (Mad)], CESTAT, Hyderabad-IV Vs Virtusa India Pvt Ltd., [2017-TIOL-1675-CESTATHYD], Hritik Exim Vs CCE, Hyderabad-IV [2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....person liable to pay tax under Reverse Charge as a prescribed document for availing credit. The language of the Rule leaves no ambiguity that such challans constitute valid document for availment of credit. The Department has denied the refund by invoking Rule 9(1)(bb). However, we find considerable force in the applicant's contention that Rule 9(1) (bb) was introduced only with effect from 01.04.2011. The refund period involved in the present appeal is January, 2010 to March, 2010. Consequently, the said provision is not applicable to the period in dispute. Even otherwise, Rule 9(1)(bb) deals with supplementary invoices, bills or challans issued by a provider of output service. In the present case, the appellant is not claiming credit on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on account of non-levy or non-payment or short-levy or short-payment by reason of fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Finance Act or of the rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of Service Tax. ..... (e) achallan evidencing payment of Service Tax by the person liable to pay Service Tax under sub-clauses (iii), (iv), (v) and (vii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) or rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 5. From the above, it is apparent that Rule 9(i)(bb) is applicable to supplementary invoice, bill or challan issued by provider of output service and Rule 9(i)(e) is applicable, inter alia, to a person liable to pay Serv....