2026 (8) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provision of the taxable services, the appellants got themselves registered with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities. The appellants avail CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on the input services. During the disputed period i.e., September 2011, the appellants had filed application under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 claiming refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit available in their Books of Accounts. The appellants have filed the refund application on the ground that since the output services were exported by them, there was no scope or occasion for them to utilize the CENVAT Credit available in their Books of Accounts. The refund application filed by the appellants was sought to be partially denied on various grounds. The ori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xus and non-mentioning of the PAN based registration of the service provider was not the defensible ground inasmuch as Rule 5 of the Rules of 2004 has provided for grant of refund in respect of exportation of the output services and observance of the procedures laid down therein. In the case in hand, the department had not specifically objected to the fact of non-exportation of the goods and non-compliance of the requirement provided under the said Rule 5 ibid. Therefore, we are of the view that denial of the benefit of refund cannot be sustained. 4. We find that an identical issue has been dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Parthenon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South - 2023 (3) TMI 511 - CESTAT MUMBAI. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n and as per the procedures laid prescribed in the notification issued thereunder and not otherwise. 6. We find that the authorities below have not discussed the issue regarding entitlement of the appellant to the benefit of refund inasmuch as, there is no specific discussion as to whether or not, the procedures laid down under Rule 5 ibid as well as the notification have not been complied with by the appellant. Thus, in absence of such specific findings being recorded, in our considered view, rejection of refund benefit cannot be sustained. We find that in the case of Credit Suisse Business Analysis (supra), this Tribunal went to the extent of allowing the CENVAT Credit, even if the invoices were not submitted before the Bench for....