The Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Respondent Appearance Shri B.G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri U. Raja Ram, JDR, for the Respondent CORAM MR. P. KARTHIKEYAN, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 04.06.2010 Date of decision: 01.07.2010 FINAL ORDER No._______________________2010 Per P. Karthikeyan The appellant M/s. mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, is a STPI Unit engaged in development and export of Software. It had claimed refund of accumulated cenvat credit of Rs. 4,36,985/. It had received various input services in relation to development and export of software. The period of dispute is the Financial Year 20062007. Vide OIO No. 47/2008 dated 30.05.2008, the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, DivisionIII, Bangalore, rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant. He found that the appellant was engaged in software development, which was not a taxable service. The assessee was not eligible for taking Cenvat credit as per Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It appeared that it had received input services such as telephone services, security, consultancy, software development, manpower supply and recruitment. But the assessee had not furnished particulars of services utilised. He rejected the refund claim also on the ground that the assessee was not registered with the Department as a provider of service. Also, the refund claim was barred by limitation. 2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the Original Authority on the same findings. 3. Before the Tribunal, the appellants have raised several grounds to justify their entitlement to refund of cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, which provides for grant of refund of accumulated cenvat credit. With the supporting caselaws, it is argued that irrespective of whether input material or service is used in manufacture of exported excisable goods or output services, an assessee is qualified for refund of the accumulated cenvat credit. There were Circulars binding the officers of the Department to expeditiously sanction refund claims filed by exporters. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. CIT  ((2006 (196) ELT 257(SC)), it is argued that for delay in grant of refund, the appellants were entitled to interest on the delayed refund. It is submitted that in M/s. Punjab Stainless Steels Industries Vs. CCE  2008TIOL1004CESTATDEL, the Tribunal had held that input credit/rebate cannot be denied on the ground that the export goods are exempted. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Sudha Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [(2008 (221) ELT 107(Tri.Ahmd.)], it is submitted that there was no time limit provided for utilising the cenvat credit and that once the credit was utilised for payment of duty and the refund if any due, would be subject to the time limit prescribed for claim of refund. There cannot be any time limit for claiming refund of accumulated cenvat credit. This was also the ratio of the following judicial authorities: (i) Swagat Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CCE2007 (220) ELT 949(Tribunal) (ii)Gilloram Gaurishankar Vs. CCE  2007 (213) ELT 528(Tribunal) It was also submitted that substantial benefit of cenvat credit could not be denied on a technical ground of the assessee being not registered with the Department. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in BSNL Vs. CCE  2008TIOL1989(T). 4. Heard both sides. 5. I have carefully perused the case records and studied the submissions by both sides. The impugned order held that the appellant being a unit engaged in software development, an activity exigible under the Central Excise Act but exempt by notification, it was not eligible to credit of service tax paid on input services in terms of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules(CCR). This Rule is reproduced below. RULE 6. Obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services.  (1) The CENVAT cre