LAW FOR ALL

It contended that it had received various services in India such as equipment hiring charges, professional consultation service, recruitment service, security service, telephone service, transport service, training service, facility operation service, courier service, cafeteria service and other input services like advertisement service, recruitment service and security service on which it is entitled to input service credit and is entitled to refund of the above amount for the period May 2005 to February 2006 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (as amended by notification No.4/2006-CE(NT) dated 14-03- 2006) and Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-03-2006 issued under Rule 5. Subsequently by letter dated 07-12-2006, the assessee restricted their refund claim to Rs.8,47,004/- as some of their input invoices did not contain the requisite information required under Rule 4-A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.applied for a refund of Rs.8,57,424/-="1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that 'computerized data processing' did not fall under 'Information Technology Service? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that computerized data processing in the instant case did not fall under 'Information Technology Service' especially when the Hon'ble Tribunal itself was ambivalent in Para 5.1 of its Order by expressing the view that "even if the services rendered by them are taken to mean 'Information Technology Services' by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Consultancy Services"? 3. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the amendment to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 14-03-2006 is applicable to the refunds emanating from the exports made prior to the said date when such Order creates a new obligation on the Department to refund the duty on input services which was not there hitherto under Rules existed prior to the said amendment on 14-03-2006?"