Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii)Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry- 2017 (48) S.T.R. 137 (Tri. - Chennai)

(iv) Symantec Software India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Pune- 2023 (12) TMI 179 - CESTAT MUMBAI

5. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, and submitted that as the appellants did not submit supporting documents forthe eligibility of CENVAT credit in a few cases, and the input services being used for output services have not been explained properly, the refund claims have been rejected in the impugned order. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is sustainable and the appeals preferred by the appellants are liable to be set aside.

40. Accordingly, the appellant shall be entitled for Cenvat credit and consequent credit in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.

41. In view of the foregoing, I find that the appellant are eligible for the refund (except for meal voucher) and the impugned order holding the contrary is set aside. All the appeals are allowed in the above terms."

8.5 I also find that in a similar set of facts arising in the case of Symantec Software India Pvt. Ltd., (supra), this Tribunal had allowed the refund of CENVAT credit in favour of the appellants. The relevant paragraphs of the said Order is extracted and given below:

ST/86763/2019 to ST/86777/2019 "Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein M/s. Symantec Software India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged interalia in providing taxable services under the category of "Information Technology Software Services" and "Business Auxiliary Services" to its group entities located outside the country. The appellant avails CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on various taxable services. Since, the output services were entirely exported by the appellant during the disputed period, there was no scope or occasion on the part of the appellant to utilize the CENVAT credit for payment of service tax. Therefore, in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant had filed various refund applications before the original authority, claiming refund of service tax paid on the input services for different periods. The refund applications filed by the appellants were adjudicated by the original authority. In the orders,the original authority had partly allowed the benefit of refund and in few cases, had denied the refund benefit, holding that the disputed service namely 'works contract service' were not used in provision of the output service; and thus, Cenvat credit so availed by the appellant is not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 2 (l) ibid. On appeal against the said adjudication order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of refund in two cases and denied such benefit in respect of other four adjudication orders, holding that the appellant did not produce the copies of invoices on which the CENVAT credit was availed by them....