Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Perrigo Laboratories India Llp vs Commissioner Central Goods And Service ... on 2 March, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO: 85515 OF 2021
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: DL/29/APPEALS THANE/TR/2020-21 dated
27th August 2020 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals
Thane), Mumbai.]
Perrigo Laboratories India Private Limited
Plot No. 39, Additional MIDC, Anand Nagar, MIDC
Ambernath (East), Thane-421506 ... Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise
Thane Rural 12th Floor, Lotus Infocentre,
Near Parel Station, Parel East, Mubai-400012 ...Respondent
APPEARANCE:
Shri Ankit Shah, Chartered Accountant for the appellant
Shri Dhananjay Dahiwale, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
FINAL ORDER NO: 85396/2026
DATE OF HEARING: 22/01/2026
DATE OF DECISION: 02/03/2026
In this second round of litigation that travelled back for
denovo adjudication with remand order of the Commissioner
(Appeals), refund sought by exporter-appellant for ₹ 99,23,772
on account of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT
ST/85515/2021
2
Credit Rules, 2004 for the period from 2017 to March 2017 vide
application dated 28th December 2017, that was partly allowed
earlier but finally rejected to the extent of ₹ 44,90,596/- by the
refund sanctioning authority, that received approval of
Commissioner (Appeals) in his above noted order, is assailed
before this forum.
2. Heard the submissions made the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant
is a 100% EOU (Export Oriented Unit) holding service tax
registration and it was engaged in providing 'Scientific and
Technical Consultancy Service' as well as 'Business Auxiliary
Service' to its client situated outside India and it sought for the
refund of unutilized CENVAT credit component but an amount of
₹ 44,72,294/- was rejected on ground of non-availability of
original invoice against such claim. After perusal of appeal paper-
book and the copy of show cause notice dated 23rd March 2012
vide para 7 it can be placed on record without hesitation that only
on ground of non-availability of supporting invoice, the said refund
was denied, though on other points also arguments were led.
3.1. As could be noticed from the order-in-original dated 27th
February 2018, instead of one invoice with consolidated figure of
₹ 44,72,264/-, the appellant had produced 3 invoices with same
invoice number having the extension no. 16, 17 and 18, adding
up of all of which amount would match with the claimed amount.
ST/85515/2021
3
In para 23 of the order-in-original, which is reproduced below, it
is clearly noted by the Adjudicating Authority as follows:
"23. in respect of invoice no. PAI/15-16dtd. 31.03.2016,
the assessee furnished three invoices for claiming service
tax credit of Rs. 44,72.264/-.
Sr. Invoice Dale Name of Value of Service Description
No No. the the tax of service
service service
provider
1 PAI/2015 31-03- Perrigo 1081661 1256284 Shared
-16/16 16 API Service
India for the
Pvt. period
Ltd. Apr 01,
2013 to
Mar 31,
2014
2 PAI/2015 31-03- Perrigo 3336710 1716565 Shared
-16/17 16 API Service for
India
the period
Pvt.
Ltd. Apr 01,
2014 to
Mar 31,
2015
3 PAI/2015 31-03- Perrigo 4314608 1499415 Shared
-16/18 16 API Service for
India the period
Pvt. Apr 01,
Ltd.
2015 to
Mar 31,
2016
TOTAL 4472264 "
3.2. Also on going by the Order-in-Original in denovo
proceedings, it reveals from para 15(ii) that assessee had
submitted three invoices which are numbered as PAI/2015-16/16,
PAI/2015-16/17 and PAI/2015-16/18 all dated 31/03/2016 for
which he agreed with the order passed by the refund sanctioning
authority in disallowing the refund of ₹ 44,72,264/-. Interestingly,
the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order, appears to have been
passed mechanically, has put a noting at para 7.1 that to arrive
at quantification of refund, the appellant failed to produce the
required/necessary documents. It appears from the discussions
ST/85515/2021
4
made by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals)
in their respective orders that only on account of placing the
consolidated figures available in three invoices having same
invoice number with extension numbers added to these invoices
as 16, 17 and 18, against which three separate invoices were
produced to justify such availment of credit and consequential
refund, benefit provided under section 5 of the CENVAT Credit
Rules, 2004 to promote export by grant of refund of accumulated
unutilized CENVAT credit, has been denied to the appellant despite
the fact that appellant was in possession of those invoices but
apparently due to clerical mistake or erroneous ascertainment
made by them, they have put the consolidated figure of three
invoices having same initial number. I am, therefore, of the
considered view that the appellant is entitled to get the refund
which is held to be inadmissible to it only for want of invoices, as
reveals from para 9 of show cause notice dated 23/03/2018 and
it would succeed in this appeal on this score alone. Therefore, the
submission made by the Learned Authorized Representative that
the order-in-appeal reveals non-production of documents in
unsustainable in both facts and law.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant also pointed out during
the course of arguments that in the absence of notice for recovery
of inadmissible credit issued under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit
Rules, 2004 no refund can be denied to the exporter as has been
held in several precedent decisions cited by him on this issue
ST/85515/2021
5
including those reported in Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax,
Hyderabad-IV [2020 (43) GSTL 402 (Tri-Hyd.)], Commissioner of
Service tax, Mumbai vs. Exxon Mobile Co. India Pvt Ltd [2015 (37)
STR 591 (Tri-Mumbai)], BNP Paribas India Solutions Pvt Ltd vs.
Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East [2022 (58) GSTL 539 (Tri-
Mumbai)], Credit Suisse Business Analytics India Pvt Ltd vs.
Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai [(2023) 9 Centax 248 (Tri-
Bom)], Cross Tab Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner
of CGST, Mumbai East [2021 (55) GSTL 29 (Tri-Mumbai)] and
Societe Generale Global Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of
Service Tax, Bangalore, [Final Order No. 20724-20725/2023
dated 17.07.2023 in Service Tax Appeal No. 21477 of 2015 and
21522 of 2015].
5. I find force in his submission made on this point. There is
no requirement in delving into other grounds raised in the appeal
including relationship/nexus between input and export service and
if services provided by the appellant falls under the category of
'export of service' as the show cause notice proposed for rejection
of the refund amount restricts it to unavailability/non-production
of invoice. There is no pleading available in respect of the
differential amount of ₹ 18,332/-, i.e., the difference between the
rejection of the total amount of credit as inadmissible and the
value of these three invoices put together for which no order is
required to be passed concerning its legality. Hence the order.
ST/85515/2021
6
ORDER
6. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. DL/29/APPEALS THANE/TR/2020-21 dated 27th August 2020 is hereby modified to the extend of allowing refund of ₹ 44,72,264/- with applicable interest, which respondent-department is directed to pay within two months of receipt of this order.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 02/03/2026) (Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati) Member (Judicial) */as