The Court dismissed Revenue appeals as the substantial questions of law raised were already covered in prior judgments before this Court, where the review applications filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
Both appeals are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
C.E.A.Nos. 71 and 74 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J)
The Revenue has come up with the present appeals, raising the
following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the assessee was within time in claiming refund without discussing the Section 11B relevant for refunds under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No.05/2006-CE (NT), dated 14.03.2006, and merely relying on the decision of Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of CCE, Pune-I Vs. Eaton Industries Pvt. Ltd., (2011 (22) STR 223 (TriMumbai))?
2. Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim of refund of CENVAT credit on construction service relying on case of Infosys Ltd. (2014 TIOL 409 CESTAT BANG)?
3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in remanding the matter with regard to the claim of refund of CENVAT credit on other services such as courier service, repair or maintenance services, telephone service, rent-a-cab service, management consultant service, chartered accountant service, etc., since the said services are not having nexus with their output services i.e., Consulting Engineering Service which was exported online? and
4. Whether the assessee is correct in claiming credit before payment of service tax?”
VRS,J & GSP,J CEA Nos.71 & 74 of 2015
2
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the
appeals shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
G. SHYAM PRASAD, J
4th November, 2016 cbs
VRS,J & GSP,J CEA Nos.71 & 74 of 2015
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
C.E.A.Nos. 71 and 74 of 2015 (Per VRS,J)
4th November, 2016
cbs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessee was within time in claiming refund relying on CESTAT Mumbai decision.
Whether the assessee is eligible to claim refund of CENVAT credit on construction service.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter regarding refund claims on specific services.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CCE, Pune-I Vs. Eaton Industries Pvt. Ltd.Referred¶8
CCE, Pune-I Vs. Eaton Industries Pvt. Ltd., (2011 (22) STR 223 (TriMumbai))
Infosys Ltd.Referred¶9
Infosys Ltd. (2014 TIOL 409 CESTAT BANG)
C.E.A.Nos. 2, 5, 9 and 6 of 2015Referred¶15
C.E.A.No.23 of 2015Referred¶15
4 provisions across 4 enactments
The Revenue
The Respondent
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
G. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
