Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Societe Generale Global Solutions ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ... on 9 October, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/1667/2011-SM [Arising out of Review Adjudication Order No. 62-2011 dated 25/03/2011 passed by CST, Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes SOCIETE GENERALE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CENTRE PVT LTD 'INVENTRO' BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL TECH PARK, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE 560 066 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX NULL 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Arul Ebenezer, Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 09/10/2015 Date of Decision: 09/10/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22052 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA The dispute in the present appeal relates to the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit availed in respect of two services i.e. management consultancy services and maintenance and repair service, in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The refund was originally granted by the Assistant Commissioner and on review, Commissioner reversed the order.
2. I find that the issue is covered by the Tribunals decision in the case of KPMG Vs. CCE, New Delhi [2014(33) STR 96 (Tri. Del.)] laying down that management consultancy service and management, maintenance or repair service are eligible CENVATable services having nexus with the manufacture of final product. If that be so, the appellant has become entitled to the refund of the said amount. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja 2