- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB CEA No. 5 of 2022 C/W CEA No. 6 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2022 C/W CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2022 BETWEEN: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX - GST BANGALORE EAST COMMISSIONERATE TTMC BUILDING, ABOVE BMTC BUS STAND DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071. …APPELLANT (COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS) (BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALIGI, ADV.) AND: WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES DODDA KANNELL SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE-560 035. …RESPONDENT (COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS) (BY SRI. RAJESH CHANDER KUMAR ROHRA, SR. ADV. FOR SMT. YOVINI RAJESH ROHARA, ADV.) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 03/09/2020 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.20580-20582/2020 AND NO.20579/2020 RESPECTIVELY BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU, PRAYING TO (A) ALLOW THE Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB CEA No. 5 of 2022 C/W CEA No. 6 of 2022 APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT AND DECIDE THE QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED THEREIN; (B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER BEARING NO.20580-20582/2020 AND NO.20579/2020 RESPECTIVELY DATED 03/09/2020 PASSED BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND) These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short “Tribunal”) in Appeal Nos.A/20579-20582/2020 dated 03.09.2020 by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. WHETHER, the impugned Final Order of the CESTAT is legally sustainable in allowing the refund of CENVAT Credit though the impugned services were not defined as taxable service in terms of definitions contained in CENVAT Credit Rules.? 2. WHETHER, the person is entitled to claim refund of CENVAT Credit used in inputs used in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB CEA No. 5 of 2022 C/W CEA No. 6 of 2022 export of services when the said activity was not defined as taxable service in terms of Section 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? 3. WHETHER, the CESTAT was right in relying upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case mPortal as a binding precedent as the same was not challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground of monetary limits? 2. That the assessee is engaged in providing Information Technology Services. The assessee has incurred input tax on the services used in providing Information Technology Services. The assessee claimed refund of CENVAT Credit on input or input services for providing such export services. The claim came to be rejected by the Revenue holding that the output services are not taxable services. In other words, it held that unless the output services are taxable, the assessee is not entitled for refund of CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal, by following various orders of this Court and other High Courts held that the assessee is entitled to refund of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB CEA No. 5 of 2022 C/W CEA No. 6 of 2022 CENVAT Credit even when the output services are not taxable. 3. Sri.Jeevan J Neeralgi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that unless output services are taxable, the assessee is not entitled to refund of CENVAT Credit. It is further submitted that the services are exported and the same were not subjected to service tax. Hence, the assessee is not entitled to claim refund of tax suffered on input services. 4. On the other hand, Sri.Rajesh Chander Kumar Rohra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent submits that subsequently by amendment, w.e.f. 16.05.2008, the Information Technology Software Services is held to be taxable. However, the period in question, the said services were not taxable. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the taxability of output services is not a pre- condition for claiming refund of input services where services are exported. In support of his submission, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB CEA No. 5 of 2022 C/W CEA No. 6 of 2022 learned Senior Counsel relies on the following judgments of this Court: (i) mPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS P.LTD. v/s C.S.T. BANGALORE (2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.); (ii) KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD. v/s COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., PUNE-1 (2013 (32)S.T.R. (Tri.Mumbai); (iii) PR.COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX SERVICE AX COMMISSIONERATE-II, TTMC/BMTC BUILDING, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560071 v/s mPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD. (2016-TIOL-692-HC- KAR-ST); (iv) COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE-TAX v/s M/S.NARUS NETWORKS PVT.LTD. (CEA No.44/2015 D.D. on 14.03.2016); (v) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX v/s BROADCOM INDIA RESEARCH PVT.LTD. (CEA No.6/2016 D.D. No.26.04.2016) 5. We have considered the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee- respondent. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB CEA No. 5 of 2022 C/W CEA No. 6 of 2022 6. A perusal of the controversy and substantial questions of law raised for consideration of this Court and the judgments cited at the Bar, we are of the opinion that the controversy would no more res-integra in view of catena of judgments of this Court i.e., mPortal India Wireless Solutions (supra) and other judgments referred to supra. This Court has categorically held that even though export of software is not taxable service, but still the assessee is entitled to refund of CENVAT Credit. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel that the said judgment has reached finality. The said submission is not disputed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. 7. The judgments referred (supra) answered the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal. The questions are answered against revenue by the above referred judgments. The questions needs no further independent consideration. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB CEA No. 5 of 2022 C/W CEA No. 6 of 2022 8. As the substantial questions of law raised for consideration of this Court are covered by the judgments referred to supra and are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, both the appeals are dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36