Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Softtek India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Bangalore ... on 20 November, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/23720/2014-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 580/2014 dated 10/09/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-II (Appeal).] M/s. Softtek India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Systech Integrators India Pvt. Ltd.) Ozone Manay Tech Park A Block, 2nd Floor, No 56/18 & 55/9, Hosur Main Road BANGALORE - 560068 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE SERVICE TAX- I 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, above BMTC BUS STAND, DOMLUR BANGALORE 560 071. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B.G.CHIDANANDA URS, CA #520, AMRUTH NIVAS, 7TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, RMV 11 STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY, BANGALORE -560094 For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 20/11/2017 Date of Decision: 20/11/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22840 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund on the ground of lack of nexus between the input service and the output service exported.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant has filed refund claim for an amount of Rs.3,64,074/- relating to period January 2010 to March 2010 for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax said to have been availed by them as per Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5 of 2006-CE dated 14.3.2006 on input service utilized by them for the export of output service. The lower authorities after examination of the documents furnished by the appellant sanctioned the refund of Rs.41,505/- and rejected the refund claim amounting to Rs.3,22,569/-. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who partially allowed the claim; hence the present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the provisions of the Act and the various decisions of the Tribunal. He further submitted that in appellants own case for identical input services, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.22559/2017 dated 25.10.2017 in appeal No.ST/23716/2014 has allowed the appeal of the appellant by relying upon the decision in the case of Technip India ltd.: 2017-TIOL-3708-CESTAT-MUMBAI. The Tribunal vide its order has observed in para 4 as under:
4. Considering the fact that at the time of availment of CENVAT credit, it was not disputed by the Revenue that the services in question on which they have availed CENVAT credit are not input services. Therefore, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Technip India Ltd.: 2017-TIOL-3708-CESTAT-MUM, I hold that at the time of claiming refund, it cannot be disputed that the said services in question are not input services, therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
5. Therefore, by following the ratio of the said decision, I allow the appeal of the appellant.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 20/11/2017) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv...
3