Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs ,Central ... vs M/S. Knoah Solution Pvt Ltd on 19 May, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20864 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/MISC/532/2011 in ST/553/2009-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/553/2009-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.5/2009 (H-IV) ST dated 28/04/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad.] Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax HYDERABAD-IV NULL POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s) Versus M/s. KNOAH SOLUTION PVT LTD. UNIT -I , PLOT NO-188/189, PHASE- II KAVURI HILLS, NASHAPRU, HYDERABAD - 500 0 81. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel For the Appellant/Revenue Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA HIRAGANGE & ASSOCIATES #1010, 1st floor (Above Corp. Bank) 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore Bangalore - 560041 Karnataka For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 19/05/2014 Date of Decision: 19/05/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue for early hearing is dismissed as infructuous as the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing.
2. The issue involved is refund claim of CENVAT Credit paid on input service used in output services which are exempted, as a result of which there was accumulated CENVAT Credit. The total amount of CENVAT credit is Rs.17, 14,716/- and the period involved is October 2006 to June 2007.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. The learned Special Counsel on behalf of the Revenue submitted that a view was taken by the original authority that the back office service and call centre services provided by the respondent was to be treated as IT services and on that ground the claim was rejected. After going through the agreement and on a plain reading of Agreement between the foreign principal and respondent, we find that services rendered by the respondent can be considered as a service rendered on behalf of the principal by the appellants to their clients. On going through the Agreement, we also find that the services provided by the appellants are classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) which was taxable during the relevant period. In view of the above, the respondent is eligible for refund claim. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority with a direction that as directed by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order he should verify the eligibility of the input services for the CENVAT credit and thereafter determine the amount of admissible.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2